HC Deb 31 January 1973 vol 849 cc1487-509

9.53 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I wish to speak on Defence Estimates, Class XII, Vote 2 C, concerning pay allowances, etc., of Army Reserves, the Ulster Defence Regiment and Cadet Forces. As a representative of Northern Ireland it is most appropriate that I should draw attention to certain matters which arise on the Supplementary Estimates. I remind the House that Subhead C refers to the Mainly higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment …. The Ulster Defence Regiment came into existence because of the disbandment of one of the best forces that Ulster ever had for its defence—the Ulster Special Constabulary.

This House is learning, in the bitterness of bloodshed and murder, of the folly of its decision to pressurise the Stormont Parliament to get rid of that fine body of men. As a result of the action of a previous Government and the action of the Stormont Parliament we find ourselves discussing the Ulster Defence Regiment. The same slanders that have been used across the world to malign the brave men of the B Specials are now being used by the same propaganda machine to malign the Ulster Defence Regiment and members of the British Army. I speak as a friend and a supporter of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I have always been a supporter of that regiment. I call on the men of Northern Ireland to enlist in the ranks of this regiment and help us to defeat the IRA conspiracy.

I pay tribute to these men, who not only take their lives in their hands when they are on duty but are easy prey to the assassin's bullet when they are not. I received a Written Answer today from the Defence Ministry concerning the attempt to murder one of these men on 28th January. An off-duty member of the UDR parked his car, and four men in a private car parked behind him. I am told by the Minister that they surrounded his car and ordered him to alight. He did so. He was just able to reach his pistol, and shots were exchanged. He was wounded, but fortunately he was able to drive off his assailants.

That is an illustration of the fact that members of the UDR are prey to the terrorists not only when they are on duty but when they are carrying out their ordinary private engagements. What is more—and this is what stirs the emotions—these men who stand for law and order are prey to assassins in front of their own families in their own homes——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's emotion, but may I ask him to confine himself to the question of the increase in expenditure on the UDR?

Rev. Ian Paisley

If you give me time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall relate the fact that we are asked to vote £1,300,000 mainly for the higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment to what I am saying by way of preface. But I should be failing in my duty if I did not point out the difficulties under which these men carry out their work even when they are not engaged in the duties of the UDR. I pay them a warm tribute and I commiserate with those who mourn the passing of brothers, fathers and husbands who will return no more. As a loyal Ulsterman, I salute their memory and the fact that they were prepared to give their lives in defence of their country.

I come to the matter which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think I should emphasise, and which I shall emphasise. I want to ask the Minister some questions which arise from the fact that he has asked for a Supplementary Estimate mainly because of the higher level of duty of the Ulster Defence Regiment …". Many people in Ulster are disturbed and there are some questions which I intend to put to the Minister about the Supplementary Estimate. Was it because his Ministry was not aware of the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland that when he asked for the original amount of money he did not ask for enough? That is a legitimate question to ask.

Is the Minister not aware of the serious complexity of the situation which in the opinion of many in Northern Ireland will continue up towards 8th March, when there could be a real escalation of violence and when we have been told by certain elements that they will do everything they can to hinder the carrying out of an exercise in democracy on that date? We are entitled to ask whether there was a miscalculation by the Ministry. Was it that those in the Ministry did not fully realise what the whole Ulster situation is really about? Did they not realise that there could be an intensification of the campaign of violence directed against the members of this regiment?

The Minister has confirmed in parliamentary answers that Roman Catholic members of the regiment have been gradually leaving it. There is a reason for their so doing. It is that these men. who are prepared to give their time and, if need be, their lives in the service of the regiment, find that they come under intense intimidation; that they are not only facing the enemy but are the victims of an insidious campaign of very wide proportions which affects not only themselves—and these gallant men can no doubt defend themselves—but their wives and even the smallest children in their families.

Has the Minister now realised the tragedy of the situation that is developing in Northern Ireland? Is he now aware of the forces that seem to be combining in an effort completely to destroy law and order there? Can we be assured that he is asking for enough money this evening, or will he have to come back again and say that this high level of duty means a further stepping up of the amount needed? Is he asking for this present sum because he has not calculated the Northern Ireland situation aright?

Is this additional sum of money needed because a decrease in recruitment means that the present members are now called out more often, have to serve more hours, and hence must be paid more overtime? On 24th January I was told in a parliamentary reply that there had been a decrease of 287 members of the regiment between 29th November and v17th January. Strange to relate, there was an increase of seven in the number of officers. There seems to be an anomaly there.

Again, is it that the rate of dismissals means that a higher level of duty is required by the remainder of the regiment? On 25th January I asked in a Parliamentary Question how many men had been dismissed from the regiment in November, December and January.

The figures show that eight men were dismissed in November, 33 in December, and 88 up to 25th January. One can see the upward spiral of dismissals. Why has there been such a jump in dismissals, from eight in November to 88 in January? Is the Minister taking that into account? Does he feel that there will be further dismissals, and that if the present rate continues hundreds of men will be dismissed in the coming months?

What are the reasons for the dismissals from the Ulster Defence Regiment? Perhaps I may remind the House of the prominent non-commissioned officer in the town of Lisburn who was dismissed. I have had some correspondence with the Ministry about this man. On one occasion he was congratulated by his commanding officer on the way that he trained his men and on the good work that he had done with the regiment. Quite summarily, and without any reason being given—the Minister will no doubt say that no reason has to be given—he was told that his services were no longer required.

In answer to Questions that have been asked in the House about these matters by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), by myself and others, there seems to be great reticence on the part of the Ministry to tell us whether these dismissals are related to membership of certain organisations, and I refer first to the Ulster Defence Assocation, and next to the Roman Catholic ex-Servicemens' Association. Is it a fact that certain men are being dismissed because they were, or still are, members of those organisations?

The money is required because of the higher level of duties to be performed. One cannot forecast how many men will be dismissed in the next three months. I should like the Minister to give us some concrete information about this. A long time ago the non-commissioned officer to whom I referred was a member of the UDA. He resigned from that organisation shortly after joining the UDR. Before being dismissed from the regiment he was questioned about his association with the UDA, and I think I could draw the conclusion that he was dismissed because of that association. I should like the Minister to be frank and tell us what the position is.

Is this extra money necessary because these men who are subject to attack in their own homes are being permitted to purchase their own weapons for their personal defence and they are to be paid the cost of such weapons? There is a great clamour in Northern Ireland among certain elements who favour the Republican conspiracy for all licensed guns to be withdrawn. Some of the people responsible for this clamour are themselves carrying licensed weapons, so there seems to be an anomaly here.

Is it because these men are subject to attacks in their own homes that they are entitled to claim money for the purchase of weapons for their own defence? The Minister said in reply to a question that the UDA member in question had a pistol. Was it an Army issue pistol, or was it a pistol that he purchased himself and for which he obtained a licence? I am informed by members of the UDR that they are not supplied with service weapons, but if they require them and their commanding officer decides that they should have them they can purchase them. I can supply the Minister with details of individuals having purchased their own weapons. I am very interested in that, because it would be a crying shame if that is the universal practice in the UDR.

Is it because there is a proposal in some districts to disarm the UDR? Some hon. Members think that it is ridiculous, but it is a fact that in certain areas it is proposed that the rifles of UDR men should be stacked in an army camp and that when the men are called out on duty they should make their way to the camp, secure their weapons and then make their way back to the place where they are to go on duty. I refer to my own constituency, which borders on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and to the platoon in Randalstown. Representations have been made to my hon. Friend and myself that when the men of the platoon in Randalstown are called out on duty they will in future have to go to the army camp in Antrim, secure their weapons there, and then return to Randalstown and go on duty. Some will have to travel 10 miles before going on duty.

I ask the Minister to look into the matter carefully. I have already communicated with his Department. I hope that tonight he can give me and the people of Northern Ireland a firm assurance that there will be no capitulation to the propaganda of the Republican movement, but that the UDR men will be entitled to have their weapons in their own homes for their own defence and so that they can go on duty readily and be made available to do the service required.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that we would all support any expenditure which might make for greater efficiency or for the greater safety of the UDR members involved, but that the additional expenditure incurred in the 10-mile journey to Antrim and back would seem to be going in the opposite direction, to make them less effective and to endanger them?

Rev. Ian Paisley

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who knows the area knows that the men have to cross a narrow bridge which leads past a disused railway enbankment. That would be an ideal place for an ambush. It is a terrible situation that the proposal should even be made to the platoon. The men are willingly serving their country, putting themselves at extreme risk in so doing. The House and the Department have the right to give them as much protection as they can in a very difficult situation.

I am sorry that I must keep myself within this Estimate. I come back to the higher level of duty. I hope that it will not be inferred from what I say that I am against money being spent for the UDR. I support its spending, but is more use to be made of the UDR in the coming days? Is that what the Minister has in mind—that there will be a higher level of duty?

The best places for the men to operate in are their own districts, because they know the people there, the people who travel about the districts. When they set up a road block, they know the cars that do not need to be stopped, the cars of people usually resident in the district, and they can stop strange cars.

In the old days, when the Ulster Special Constabulary was in operation, we never had long queues of cars at road blocks. These queues of cars, in my view, defeat the purpose of the road block because, if a terrorist intends to plant a bomb and he sees a long line of cars stretching, perhaps, for a quarter of a mile, he at once turns his car round and goes by another route. This is what is happening. If, on the other hand, there is a steady flow through the barrier of cars driven by local people known to the members of the regiment, people in the neighbourhood and going about their usual business at that time, such cars may be allowed to pass, and the only cars called in are those strange to the district.

I am sure that that sort of arrangement would better satisfy the general public. There is no doubt that, although the loyalist people of Northern Ireland are prepared to put up with any inconvenience, they feel that some of the inconveniences are not altogether worth while and do not greatly help to defeat the terrorist campaign.

Has the Minister in mind a fuller use of the men of the Ulster Defence Regiment at a higher level of duty for each one of them so that they may be used locally? I know of many instances in which they are being used locally, and that I welcome. I hope that these men will be enabled, as the days go by, to carry out the job with which they have been entrusted by the House, and I wish them every success and the protection of Almighty God in the duties which they have to perform.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on his success in the ballot and on the way in which he has presented the case for wider use of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I support all he said, in particular his concluding remarks. All hon. Members—I am glad to see so many of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland here at this late hour to attend the debate—know that in former times, before they were disbanded, the B Specials coped with successive campaigns of violence with a degree of capability and flexibility which we have not seen in Northern Ireland over the last three years.

On the front to which my hon. Friend referred last—that is, in the stopping and searching of cars—the B Specials were able to spread their efforts more evenly throughout the Province, especially near border areas, searching in a more flexible manner so that, when Republicans were moving in convoy, as they frequently do, they were able to stop and search those cars which, when the drivers saw a barricade ahead, turned round and backtracked or made off down side roads.

The B Specials were able to do this because a body of locally recruited men have a much better knowledge of the roads in an area than can possibly be possessed by Army personnel stationed in Northern Ireland for three or four months or by the police service or the UDR in the rôle in which it is being used at present.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will explain in detail what is meant in the Estimate by the phrase, "higher level of duty". What is to be the wider scope of the Ulster Defence Regiment? It is becoming increasingly clear to all hon. Members that the Army alone cannot provide adequate protection against the activities of Republican terrorists—both their bombing campaigns, not only in the centre of large towns but in smaller towns, and the hit-and-run attacks from across the border to which we have become accustomed. These cannot be adequately blocked even though we have 20,000 soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland, supported by our local police and reserve forces. Unless the rôle of the UDR is widened so that it operates more like the B Specials there is no hope of containing the murderous campaign from which we have suffered—a campaign which has caused the deaths of about 700 people in three years and has maimed and injured thousands.

What weapons will the UDR be equipped with? Will they be sufficient to deal with the type of attack we have been experiencing in Northern Ireland, not only from the most modern Russian automatic weapons but also from Russian rockets which are capable of penetrating the light armour of the troop carriers and the buildings in which the men are housed? In country areas the UDR weapons are kept in central armouries. The men serve in their spare time and it is a great deterrent for them to have to waste an hour collecting their weapons and taking them back after duty when they could be providing the type of service expected of them.

Will the Minister reconsider whether it is possible for these men to keep their weapons at home? That would enable the men to deal with attacks from four or five assassins, which has been the type of attack mounted in the past against UDR men living in isolated houses and near the border, and against the Roman Catholic members of the regiment who have been singled out by the IRA for vicious attack in their own homes. Has thought been given to providing a proper alarm system by radio communication to these men's houses, particularly in the outlying areas?

The situation facing the men of the UDR, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the reserve police has been aggravated by the Government's action. The political initiative taken about nine months ago did nothing but encourage the terrorists and the Republicans, and it struck dismay into the loyal members of the population.

I hope that in the difficult days ahead, following publication of the White Paper and when the plebiscite is taken, adequate preparation will be ensured to meet the type of emergencies which most of my hon. Friends and myself foresee in the Province. There will have to be early action to strengthen the UDR, to give the men better equipment and to review the rôle of the force, because unless that is done there is no hope of meeting the present terrorist challenge or of containing and defeating the type of attacks which are likely to be mounted.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

I entirely support the vote of money for the increase in the UDR duties. I rise to speak under the shadow of five young men mindlessly murdered in the past 48 hours. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me briefly to condemn—and I know that the House joins with me in condemning—the dreadful recurrence of assassinations in Northern Ireland. I condemn murders, whether by extremist Roman Catholics killing Protestants, or extremist Protestants killing Roman Catholics, or even by just ordinary criminals, as may well be the case in many instances, making use of the complete breakdown of law and order and the anarchy that prevails in many parts of our Province. It makes no difference who does the shooting—young lives are lost, families are bereaved and the community slides even deeper into the morass of emnity and indifference.

A beleaguered community, which is what Northern Ireland now is, sees little difference between the slaughter of 700 civilians by IRA bombs and explosives and more than 200 police and soldiers, including members of the UDR, to which we are referring this evening, and the individual murder of young men and boys which have recently taken place in Northern Ireland. It is utterly deplorable that the Ulster community should have been deprived of the security that every country is entitled to expect for its citizens.

The number of people who have died in Northern Ireland over what some might regard as a relatively short time of a few years is the equivalent of 40,000 people dead in Great Britain, and that is a staggering number. If a single policeman is shot elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the whole power of the State is set in motion. Things have reached such a pass in Northern Ireland that the murders pass almost unnoticed.

Having said that, I turn to the Supplementary Estimate for the Ulster Defence Regiment. The UDR is playing its part with the Army and the police. With the Army and the police, it is one of the principal but less publicised instruments that the Government are using to combat terrorism. But the community at large is not convinced that it is being used to its full effectiveness. I have advocated for a long time the setting up of local units of platoon strength of the UDR. Men—and women, too, when they return home from the factory who could don their uniforms and go into the streets and countryside that they know and defend and protect their brothers and sisters no matter what their policies or creed.

It is difficult for our courageous soldiers, who go to Northern Ireland as strangers, to know who is a stranger in a town or village or townland. Local people know local people. If the Government have the courage to establish local platoons, local units and a full-time battalion, we should go some way towards bringing terrorism in Northern Ireland to an end. For the great majority of the people of Ulster this is a task untinged by any thought of religious differences.

I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you allow me to make a personal remark. The County Down Battalion, based at Ballykinlar, which is partly in my constituency, had as its second in command a highly respected Roman Catholic—a Major Beaumont—who unfortunately died some months ago of a heart attack. He was a keen and able officer, and was second in command to Colonel Dion Beard, a distinguished officer who is shortly leaving Northern Ireland. Major Beaumont was respected by the men who served under him. He was not the kind of man to be put off or frightened by IRA threats. He was determined to serve the community, and he put his loyalty and duty to it above all else.

Both my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) have referred to IRA intimidation. Unfortunately, it has reduced the number of Roman Catholics serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment to 4 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary regrets this, as I do and as others do in Northern Ireland. I do not know what the highest total strength of the UDR has been, but my impression is that it has now fallen to around 9,000. This is to be deplored at a time when they are needed more than ever.

Is enough being done to publicise the regiment? It may be said that there is no need to publicise it. We are living in the midst of an emergency when every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland knows that we need people to come forward to defend our homes, our factories and our whole institution of government. But I feel that there has been a falling off in the placing of advertisements in local and provincial newspapers and on television. In addition, local recruitment would be encouraged if the Government formed local platoons. I wonder whether the Government are prepared to take this crucial step—because it is essential to the future of Northern Ireland.

In my own village of Millise in County Down, men in the Ulster Defence Regiment have to travel up to 30 miles, which is a considerable distance after a hard day's work in a local factory, or in one of our world famous factories in Belfast, or on the farm, to do their stint of duty. It is really too much to expect of human beings, and it is surprising in the circumstances that the regiment has attracted and kept so many good men. Long may it continue.

The need for some form of personal defence for these men is an urgent question. Men serving in the UDR who have considerable distances to travel—or, for that matter, no great distance to travel—should be provided with the means of protecting themselves when they are going from their headquarters back to their homes. IRA men are constantly on the look-out for members of the security forces. They note the registration numbers of their cars, and they wait for them outside their homes. We know to our regret that some UDR members have been shot down in the presence of their wives and children.

There is not a single member of the Opposition present. But it is even more regrettable that the political leaders of the minority in Northern Ireland—I am positive that they do not represent all the minority—have actually discouraged young men from serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment. I think it was Mr. Austin Currie who met Roman Catholic members of the UDR and passed on the message that that was not the place in which they ought to be. The terrorists in Northern Ireland will not be defeated until the community as a whole sets its whole mind against them and shows by its action that these thugs can find no sympathy anywhere in the province.

Ulster's political future, shortly to be outlined in the White Paper, depends fundamentally on the restoration of order as rapidly as possible. So we must do our best for them. I wonder whether the UDR is properly equipped. Has it enough armoured cars? Can it not be provided with helicopters and all the sophisticated weapons with which the Regular Army is provided?

Such equipment will entice other men to come forward and serve in the regiment. I regret that only 9,000 citizens in Northern Ireland have come forward to serve in the regiment. I would be out of order to talk about why so many people decline to serve in the regiment at present.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Would not my hon. Friend agree with me that it is regretted that when many ex-Servicemen who have had distinguished careers in the Army, many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who are now retired and many members of the Ulster Special Constabulary applied for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment they were refused? Is that not something to be greatly deplored and regretted?

Mr. Kilfedder

It must be a case of great minds thinking alike, because my hon. Friend has anticipated what I was just about to say—I think that this is within the terms of the debate—that it was a political decision and a wrong decision by the Government to exclude many members of the B Specials who had for so long, honourably and for a mere pittance, served the Province in holding back the terrorists. But even at this late hour, perhaps the Government will say, "Tell these men to come forward. We welcome them because of their experience and local knowledge, and we certainly respect their integrity and the service which they have provided to Northern Ireland."

I wonder whether enough men are being trained as officers in the UDR. The limited number of officers plays its own part in limiting the effect of the regiment and putting a brake on recruitment. I want to see more than 9,000 men. I want to see the Regular Army helped to an even greater extent by a greater number of people in the UDR. But I want the Government to use the regiment effectively. If the Government are seen by the people of Northern Ireland to be using the UDR effectively and properly a great many more people will come forward to serve the community.

The UDR has a vital rôle to play in the return to sanity. We ought to be unstinting in our praise of the magnificent work which members of the UDR are doing in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We cannot forget that many have been killed, Protestant and Roman Catholic, as I had said earlier, in front of members of their families. These men will be remembered as the men who, night after night, came to the aid of the community when Ulster needed them.

I ask the Minister to bear in mind what has been said in this brief debate. I ask him especially to remember my final point about former members of the B Specials and to see whether he can, even now, bring them into the ranks of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North)

There is one point I want briefly to make. As has been mentioned, there are occasions when members of the Ulster Defence Regiment live with their families in areas close to areas of danger and where they have anxiety about their safety because of the location of their dwellinghouses. In those circumstances it seems to me that they ought to be able to have some form of priority in rehousing.

I was recently in touch with the Housing Executive on this matter, and it seems that priority is not given to such members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who, I must remind the House, are members of Her Majesty's Forces. Members of the Army serving in Northern Ireland are living in barracks or special conditions where they and their families have more effective security than members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. My request to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is brief, and I am sure he will be sympathetic to the point. It is this. Where a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment is living close to an area where there is reason to think there is potential danger, then, in those circumstances, and in conjunction with the Housing Executive, some form of priority, in recognition of his services, should be given to that man for rehousing, if that is his wish.

10.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker)

The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for raising this subject, which he rightly described as opportune. He put to me, as he admitted, a good many questions. He was not the only one of the hon. Members who have spoken to do that. I shall do my best to answer his questions, and those put to me by my hon. Friends.

I welcome very much the feeling, which has been shown so clearly by all the hon. Members who have spoken, of support for the Ulster Defence Regiment. The hon. Member for Antrim, North expressed his support in forthright terms for the regiment and I hope that his remarks will evoke a similar response of support for the regiment from all men of good will in Northern Ireland, of whatever opinion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) had some relevant questions and I shall come to them in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) deplored the dreadful recurrence of sectarian murders in recent days after a preiod of what appeared to be improvement, and I should like to join very sincerely with him in the sentiments of regret and horror he expressed. He advocates that platoons should be set up in local areas, and he mentioned the possibility of a full-time battalion. I shall return to this matter in a moment. I welcome very much his concluding words, in which he said—I think I got his words exactly—that the UDR has a vital rôle to play in a return to sanity.

As for the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), he has already taken up this matter with me. As he understands, it is not within the power of my Department to deal with it, but I can give him this assurance, that I have not lost sight of the very important point he makes and that I shall press it.

The debate has been entirely about the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Vote that we are discussing covers rather wider ground and, before dealing with the UDR, I will explain how the £1,300,000 is made up. It represents about 90 per cent. of the £1;½ million that may be required. I understand that to be the custom when Supplementary Estimates are presented at this stage. The £1½ million is made up as follows: about £500,000 is for expenditure on the TA&VR, nearly £900,000 is for the Ulster Defence Regiment and about £75,000 is for the cadet forces.

Recent publicity may have left the impression in some people's minds that the Ulster Defence Regiment is a regiment with problems. Ever since its inception the regiment has suffered in the public eye. Some people in the Province resented its creation and looked hopefully for its failure. The people who took that view have been disappointed. They have seen thousands of their fellow-citizens joining up to form a force of 11 trained and disciplined battalions which give sterling service in support of the Regular Army. I take this opportunity of adding my tribute to those which have been paid to the members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

I should like to put right what may be a misapprehension on the part of some of my hon. Friends. The reason for the Supplementary Estimates for the UDR is a story not of problems but of success. The Supplementary Estimates are largely accounted for by a higher frequency of turn-out than was assumed when the Estimates were prepared. That answers one of the questions put by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East. I am speaking here of voluntary turn-out. Another factor is that the regiment was called out on a full-time basis at the time of Operation Motorman, and did a useful and effective job in support of the Regular Army. That added to the expenditure of the regiment.

Last week the strength of the regiment was 353 officers and 8,483 other ranks, a total of 8,836 men. Morale is high, and hon. Members can be assured about the regiment's operational capability. An average of nearly 500 men are turning out for daytime duties, and about 1,300 are turning out every night of the week. Those are impressive figures.

The range of duties of the regiment remains within the terms of reference in the White Paper of 1969. As I say, the number of men turning out and the frequency with which they do so are higher than was estimated and a credit to all concerned. The high turn-out does not arise from difficulties in recruitment and more frequent turn-outs by a smaller number of men. I hope that will allay the anxiety of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The decrease in numbers in recent weeks to which the hon. Member referred is due principally to the loss of men who were not playing their full part in turning out for duty for reasons which vary from one person to another. That is the principal factor in the reduction of numbers in the regiment. Recruitment having gone well for much of last year, it dipped from November until Christmas. I am glad to say that it is now picking up.

The regiment concentrates on routine tasks in the countryside to allow the Regular Army to make the maximum effort where it is most useful. The operations carried out by the regiment are indispensable and, in a quiet way, they contribute to the more spectacular successes achieved by the regular army.

The UDR has had noteworthy successes. For example, this month near Armagh one UDR patrol routed an ambush, seized two men and found four firearms in their attackers' car. Therefore, they do not only carry out routine duties. During Operation Motorman the regiment turned out on a full-time basis and its response was magnificent. From 29th July to 13th August the number of men on duty was 4,780 with a peak on 2nd August of 5,357 men.

Although manning levels vary from battalion to battalion, by any fair standard of comparison, the current strength of the regiment is well up—some 8,800 out of an establishment of 10,000, or 88 per cent., which is higher than that in the TAVR in the country as a whole. Therefore, we need not become too depressed about the number of its members.

Last year saw a spectacular increase in the strength of the regiment, and it is not surprising there has been a certain amount of additional wastage. Some of the newer members of the regiment may have found their ability to fulfil their obligations was less than they had expected, and naturally they would tend to leave. Again, some members have left the regiment in the normal course of completion of their contractual term of engagement. But we have also taken steps in recent months to ensure that as far as possible only those members are retained who are able to give regular and satisfactory attendance. I hope that this process will be completed before very long.

My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North mentioned the percentage of Roman Catholics in the regiment. I am anxious to see more applications from Roman Catholics to join the UDR. It would not be useful to go into the reasons why their number has declined. It has already been said that their numbers have gone down to about 4 per cent. of the total. However, I assure the House that the balance of the force is a matter of the greatest importance. We shall continue to do our utmost to see that it is as representative as possible of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.

I take this opportunity of reminding those who may seek to question whether Roman Catholics or any other section of the community can continue to have confidence in the UDR as an effective non-sectarian force that the regiment has given good account of itself since it was formed three years ago. Many of its officers, including its present commander, are Roman Catholics, and the membership of its advisory council comprises Protestants and Roman Catholics in equal proportions.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I appreciate the anxiety to see that Roman Catholics are encouraged to join the UDR, but I hope that this will not debar Protestants from being taken on in the regiment. A common anxiety among Protestants is that in their efforts to get Roman Catholics to join the regiment the Government might refuse membership to Protestants who apply.

Mr. Blaker

One reason for the drop in the percentage of Roman Catholics is that in the last year there have been many new entrants to the regiment, and they have been predominantly Protestants. However, that does not alter the fact that we would like more Catholics.

I remind the House that the policy and procedures for vetting applications to join the regiment were discussed in the debate on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill in 1969. There has been no change in those arrangements, the purpose of which was to establish on an individual basis that the applicant was of good character, was not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum, and was likely to act in the bests interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.

The House will recall that the responsibility for deciding on individual applications has been placed on the GOC Northern Ireland. I believe that is right, because the suitability of an applicant to join the regiment or to continue to serve in it is essentially a matter for the Army's professional judgment. I believe that on the whole the arrangements for the vetting of applications to join the regiment have worked well during the past three years.

Mr. Kilfedder

I mentioned the B Specials. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that former membership of the B Specials is not a bar to membership of the UDR? A number of men in my constituency who have been turned down—they are of eminently respectable character—are bewildered and annoyed, and of course there is no appeal against that refusal.

Mr. Blaker

I assure my hon. Friend that former membership of the Ulster Special Constabulary is not a bar to membership of the UDR. Indeed, the figures show that many former members of that body did join the UDR. The procedures for admission are based on an individual criterion, not on former membership of a body such as that. It might be a different matter if such a body were illegal. However, we are not discussing anything of that kind here.

Hon. Members have asked about joint membership of the UDR and organisations such as the UDA and the Catholic Ex-Servicemen's Association. Last Thursday, in a Written Answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I indicated that membership of outside organisations which were not illegal was primarily a matter for the individual and that our interest was solely in the individual's acceptability for continued service in the regiment.

The question, in short, is: where does his primary loyalty lie? We must have confidence that it lies with the regiment. As hon. Members probably know, all members of the regiment have been reminded that it is a non-sectarian force. They have been reminded that they will be discharged if their former sympathy or affection for the UDA or the CESA is strong enough to affect the performance of their military duties to or to call in question their future loyalty or impartiality. That represents an increased emphasis on what has always been our policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, expressed alarm at the rate of discharge. He quoted the figures I had given him about the number of discharges in the last three months. He expressed alarm that the rate might continue. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that this will not occur. As a result of a delay in the reporting of discharges to the headquarters there has been a time lag. It is partly as a result of a deliberate policy of inviting the resignations of people who have not been showing satisfactory record of attendance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North asked about the creation of local platoons. I think he meant local platoons on a full-time basis, or possibly a full-time battalion. There is no doubt that a case can be made out for that type of unit. However, as hon. Members will be aware, such arrangements would not only require legislation; they would involve a change in the character of the regiment, which is basically a part-time force for duty at nights and weekends. It is right to point out that the part-time force of about 8,000 men is already supported by a number of permanent staff. These are full-time UDR personnel who are referred to as "Conrates" because of the way they are paid to undertake the duties connected with the basic organisation and running of the 11 battalions and 55 companies, including the security of the UDR armouries and other buildings.

We have the formation of this section of the regiment under frequent review. There are at present vacancies in the regiment for people who wish to join as members of the permanent staff.

Mr. Kilfedder

Will the Government consider introducing part-time platoons operating locally in order to attract the local people?

Mr. Blaker

There may be a misunderstanding. The essence of the UDR is that it is recruited on a local basis as it is a part-time organisation. If the hon. Gentleman has some different type of organisation in mind, perhaps he could let me know.

Rev. Ian Paisley

The concern in the minds of hon. Members is that local people recruited and local platoons should be used in their own district. There are men in my district who are shifted 30 miles to set up road blocks and other men from another district are brought into my district. We feel that local platoons should be used locally.

Mr. Blaker

I understand the points which hon. Members have been making and I shall look into them. I was talking about those members of the regiment who are already on a full-time basis. I remind the House that there is authority in the UDR Act to call in part-time members for full-time service. That was done during Operation Motorman, and on other occasions. In addition, there are about 100 part-time members called out for full-time service at the moment so as to be available for duty during the day as well as at nights and weekends. Therefore, at present there is within the ambit of the regiment a certain amount of flexibility. At present we are continuing to rely on the arrangements and powers that exist in the Act as it stands.

A number of hon. Members asked about the important matter of arms. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North that the extra money in the Estimates is not connected with paying UDR members so that they can buy arms because their own arms are inadequate. The normal weapon with which the UDR is equipped is the self-loading rifle, which is the same as that used by the Regular Army, and there are some sub-machine guns.

Most of the duties of the regiment do not call for equipment other than such personal weapons, radios and vehicles as they possess. It is the Government's view that the scales of equipment issued are sufficient for the regiment's operations, but in addition to the items that I have mentioned, as specialised equipment the UDR has a number of Shorland armoured cars.

Mr. McMaster

Is not my hon. Friend aware that we are concerned about attacks on individual members of the UDR? If a man is in a car and is attacked by a group of people a self-loading rifle is of little use. He must have either an automatic pistol or a Sten gun, or something that would be much more useful than a rifle, particularly if he is attacked by three or four people acting in concert.

Mr. Blaker

I was about to come to that. I agree that it is an important matter. The basic principle from which we start is that men undertaking duty with the regiment are equipped with the regiment's weapons for the purpose of their duties. Some of them may be kept at home where the man's ability to do his duty is improved by allowing that—and particular local factors would be taken into account by the commander of the UDR in making his decision—but most of the weapons are held in local armouries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North raised the question of the Randalstown platoon, about which he has been in touch with me. I do not have the answer for him tonight, but I assure him that I am treating the matter as urgent and will let him know the result.

Weapons for personal security are in a different category from weapons for duty, and I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members. The position on such weapons is that if a member of the regiment considers that he needs a weapon for his personal protection he may apply for a service pistol through his unit commanding officer to the commander of the UDR. The weapon would be a Government pistol. Alternatively, he may prefer to acquire a privately-owned weapon, in which event he may apply for a shotgun or other firearm certificate to the RUC through his commanding officer.

I think that the striking example which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North quoted when I mentioned to him an answer, I think today, of the member of the UDR who must have displayed considerable courage and managed to escape from the situation in which he was in a car surrounded by four assailants demonstrates that the personal weapons available to the UDR can be very effective when used with courage.

On the question of personal arms, I assure the House that the UDR authorities examine applications sympathetically and accept the great majority of those for a service pistol, or they support the member's application to the RUC for a civilian firearm as appropriate.

I think that I have answered most of the questions that I was asked. If I have not, no doubt somebody will remind me, otherwise it will be too late. If I am correct in believing that I have answered all the questions, I conclude with one further comment. None of us in this country under-rates the achievements and efforts of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland, but while it is easy for people over here to take for granted what the Regular Army does in Northern Ireland it is even easier for them to take for granted what is done by the UDR. This is partly because most of the regiment's duties are unspectacular—guarding the perimeters of key points night after night, conducting checks at vehicle check points, patrolling dark and often dangerous lanes in the countryside, in the knowledge that some of their colleagues have been killed in the course of just such duties.

I believe that in the days to come the value of the UDR's contribution to the security of the Province will continue undiminished. The House will agree that the steadiness of members of the regiment, their disregard of intimidation and danger, and the reputation the regiment has consistently enjoyed as a disciplined, non-sectarian force, reflects the greatest credit on all its soldiers, its officers, and all who have trained and guided it since the early days of 1970.