HC Deb 21 March 1979 vol 964 cc1657-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I raise this debate in sorrow rather than anger. I have a great love for the Royal Air Force. I served as a pilot in both the RAF and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. At present I am vice-chairman of the RAF group in this House. It grieves me that the Minister should adopt such an inflexible attitude towards young men wishing to join the RAF in the branch of their choice.

The tale that I shall relate is simple. The decision of the RAF in this case is clouded in darkness and it is hard to see how the Minister came to his conclusion. The defence review states that there will be a shortage of pilots for a few years. There is and will be a definite shortage of engineers. The young man whom I am about to discuss could be eligible for both, depending on his medical category. He is exceptionally gifted, yet he has been turned away by a decision that is contrary to the RAF publication on cadet-ships of last year, (PAM) Air 296.

Stephen McKinnell's father, Jack, is a Dumfries man who served 22 years in the Post Office. In 1968 he was chosen by the Post Office to serve on secondment in Zambia to help develop the telecommunications in Africa. In similar circumstances he might have been in the Services or the Foreign Office. At least he was posted overseas. He took his family with him, but had he known the way things would turn out he would have left Stephen in Dumfries with his grandparents. In any event, Stephen, then aged 10, had no say in the decision to go to Africa.

Stephen was born in Dumfries. He is a British subject and has a British passport. In 1971 his father was offered a post in post office engineering in Durban. At the end of his contract he came home to Dumfries in 1976. Already Stephen was daft about aircraft. Indeed, his enthusiasm to join the RAF brought the family home. They could well have remained in South Africa, and Stephen would have been welcomed by the South African Air Force—a fine service, with which I flew from time to time during the war. From an employment point of view the decision to return home cost the family dear. Mr. McKinnell is still unemployed. This fact should be borne in mind by the Minister.

The McKinnells returned to their native Dumfries in 1976. Stephen had done exceptionally well in school. He was accepted by Dumfries academy, where his academic prowess has continued to flourish. Last year, at 17, he had already obtained five higher passes—one an"A"pass—and an unconditional place at Glasgow university to read for a B.Sc. in aeronautical engineering. That is some achievement for a lad of his age. This session he has continued at school and is taking additional papers in chemistry, maths, modern studies and history. He has not been content to sit on his laurels.

Last year, he applied for his RAF cadetship and proceeded to Biggin Hill for interview. To his surprise, on 18 September he received a letter stating that as he had not resided in this country during the last five years the decision whether he should be allowed to join the RAF would be that of the MOD. On 9 October it was confirmed that he would not be accepted and that the five-year period could not be waived.

The RAF acted quite incorrectly. (PAM) Air 296, on page 8, in paragraph 33, states that a candidate for entry into the Royal Air Force must satisfy the service authorities that: a. at all times since birth he has been a British subject or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and b. He was born in a country or territory which is (or then was) within the British Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland, and c. Each of his parents was born in a country or territory which is (or then was) within the British Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland ". All these categories are fulfilled by Stephen McKinnell. Paragraph 34 does not apply strictly because Stephen is a British subject, who has a British passport. It says that a candidate for commissioning in the Royal Air Force who is not of United Kingdom origin should have resided in the United Kingdom for a minimum of 5 years immediately preceding the application. This may be waived in special circumstances by permission of the Secretary of State for Defence. The Minister should recognise that the amendments of 1975 and up to August 1976 to (PAM) Air 296 did not affect paragraphs 33 and 34, although substantial changes were made elsewhere. Paragraphs 33 and 34 both state that the Minister has the right to waive the rule, and if ever there was a case for exercising that right it is this one. If it were not for Stephen McKinnell, I wonder for whom the Minister would waive the rule. What happens to the children of Service men or diplomats who have been abroad for five years?

A shattered Stephen and his father asked me to intervene. On 11 October I wrote to the Minister. I received his reply on 24 November, confirming the decision. I do not want to cause the Minister too much embarrassment, but I shall quote from his letter. In the third paragraph he says that The reference to the residence requirement is admittedly misleading ". It certainly is not. Paragraphs 33 and 34 are abundantly clear. There was no five-year rule for British citizens. The Minister changed the rule and applied it before the pamphlet was redrafted. That is bad enough, but the reason for the decision is even worse.

In his second paragraph, the Minister says that The rule is applied because we must be as certain as we can be that an applicant is fully assimilated to the British way of life and will fit in to the close-knit community of the Royal Air Force. Many people find it difficult to adapt to such an individual way of life, and it is our experience that this difficulty is compounded for those whose recent or formative experience has been outside the United Kingdom. That statement is unacceptable. Anyone who has kept in touch with the RAF knows that to be wrong. It is the opposite of the type of young man who should be attracted to the RAF. If one said that to the brilliant South African who was once in the RAF—" Sailor"Malan—his reply would beg description.

We want highly intelligent boys with initiative, knowledge of the world—such as Stephen has—ambition, spirit and the brilliance of Stephen. Yet the system says"No ", despite the fact that the Minister has the power to be flexible. Recently, all members of the RAF, past and present, were sad to hear of the death of Air Chief Marshal Paddy Bandon, the Earl of Bandon. He was a great leader of men. The Minister will recall his speaking to cadets at Cranwell, when he said: There seems to be an idea that everyone should be of a pattern. We don't want that in the RAF. We want the chaps with an inquiring mind and with spirit. That obviously contradicts the paragraph in the Minister's letter. I know which advice I would take when looking for good recruits.

There is a further lack of logic in the Minister's case. Even if he insists on the five-year rule, perhaps he will look at it in the light of the fact that Stephen returned to the United Kingdom in 1976 and that by the time that he has achieved his degree it will be 1982 or 1983. He will have been at home for nearly three years before he goes to the university. The five years' residence in the United Kingdom will have been attained before he leaves university and before he would report on a regular basis to an RAF station.

During that period, he would be commissioned and would be mixing with undergraduates, the people of Dumfries and, it is hoped, serving with the university air squadron. Can he not be accepted on that time scale? We are talking about only two years, because he has been here for virtually three years. Surely the Minister would be prepared to waive two years for an exceptional candidate. If he cannot find out enough about Stephen's history, this method of investigation cannot be satisfactory.

Stephen has been to RAF stations with fellow pupils from the academy and loved the life. I cannot see why the rule cannot be waived. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

The case is not unique. There is another case that I have heard of. It involves Peter Thompson of Stratford-on-Avon. He is English born and bred. His parents separated and his mother had to take him to South Africa to live with relatives. He has passed the required exams. The RAF asked him to come to the United Kingdom for interview. He did so last July, but he, too, has been turned down.

Both boys have everything required for entry. Must I therefore be forced to the conclusion that South Africa is the key? The Government are totally opposed to many things that happen in South Africa. I disagree with their view. Would the boys have been turned down if they had lived in Hong Kong, Germany or America? I think not. If I am right, it is indefensible to take it out on these lads because, for domestic reasons outwith their control, they have spent a few years in South Africa. It can have done nothing but good for their characters and must have broadened their knowledge of the world. The opportunity that they have had to mix with people of different races and colours could only be an asset within the RAF.

Both boys would have been exceptional cadets. That is certainly true of Stephen, whose family I know much better. I am sure that talent and loyalty would have been the great advantages that they would have given to the RAF.

It is still not too late. After all, Stephen is not expecting to go to university until next autumn. If he is to go as a cadet, he must be accepted before he goes to university. Once he is there it will be too late. He cannot be accepted in retrospect as a commissioned officer reading for a degree.

I hope that the case that I have made, as concisely as possible, has shown that if ever there were a case for flexibility and for the waiving of a rule that may be waived in exceptional circumstances, Stephen is surely that case. I hope that the Minister will look at it most carefully.

11.55 p.m.

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

I welcome the opportunity to explain more fully to the House the reasons why we have been unable to agree to the award of a Royal Air Force cadetship to Mr. Stephen McKinnell. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has done a service to the constituents concerned and to the whole of his constituency by raising this matter, because it is of great interest. The interests of an individual deserve to be properly aired and given a proper answer by a Minister in the House, and that is what I hope to do. I am sure that the House will regard the safeguarding of those interests as one of its most important functions.

I should like to lay at rest straight away one matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, namely, his reference to the fact that both Stephen McKinnell and Peter Thompson have, for a time, resided in South Africa and therefore, in some way or other, that affected the judgment of the Royal Air Force and my judgment when I considered whether there should be a waiver in Stephen McKinnell's case. There is no substance to that suggestion whatsoever. The nationality rules apply irrespective of the place of origin of anyone—British citizen or non-British citizen—seeking to join the Royal Air Force who has not had five years' continuous residence within the United Kingdom.

A Royal Air Force cadetship is awarded after a careful selection procedure to allow young men and women to acquire, through Royal Air Force sponsorship, the academic qualifications to fit them for permanent and progressive careers in the Royal Air Force. The officer branches in which Stephen McKinnell has expressed interest are the general duties branch and the engineer branch. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the general duties branch is the flying and executive branch of the Royal Air Force, from whose senior ranks are chosen many of the highest appointments in the RAF. The engineer branch provides the skilled engineers needed to maintain, at the highest possible level of operational readiness, the RAF's wide range of complex military facilities, which include aircraft, their weapons, air-to-ground communications systems, ground-based radio, radar and electronics systems for air defence, and command and control communications. It follows, therefore, that the RAF is keen to encourage all those with suitable aptitudes and personal qualities to enter these important branches, and is prepared to sponsor and to provide financial help for students at universities, polytechnics and colleges.

Not all those who enter the RAF with degrees and other higher educational qualifications do so under the cadetship scheme. Some entrants prefer to graduate first and enter the RAF later. But one feature of the cadetship scheme is of central importance to this particular debate. All holders of RAF cadetships are commissioned officers. They need to be so as members of the university air squadron to which they are allocated. Their progress is monitored by academic advisers from the Royal Air Force College and the officer commanding the university air squadrons. This includes visits to RAF units as officers to see the work of the RAF at first hand. For an officer of the general duties branch, the period at university is followed by up to three years of flying training. The investment made by the RAF in such officers is, therefore, very considerable indeed, both in terms of money and, perhaps more importantly, in terms of training effort. We need to be as certain as we can that this investment has its dividends, and that brings us back to the process of selection for cadetships.

The potential general duties officer needs, of course, to pass stringent medical and aircrew aptitude tests. In addition, we need to know he has the necessary personal qualities to become an officer. The hon. Member has outlined in a manner with which I would not dissent the many excellent qualifications of his constituent. This young man seems in all respects the sort of person whose application for a cadetship the RAF should welcome. What, then, is the difficulty with regard to Stepen McKinnell?

The difficulty arises, as the House has been told, from the fact that, owing to his father's duties, Stephen McKinnell spent some years overseas, and returned to this country at the end of 1976. This, we felt, did not give us quite enough information to justify the immediate award of a commission, which is what a cadet-ship involves. Stephen was born in the United Kingdom of British parents. He is not, therefore, within the rule which specifies a minimum of five years residence in the United Kingdom immediately preceding the date of application, in the way that a non-United Kingdom citizen is. But, as I explained to the hon. Member in the course of correspondence, a similar need for comprehensive and up-to-date information can exist for applicants who are of United Kingdom origin as part of the general process for assessing a person's suitability for something as important as a commission, and in whom the RAF is considering investing perhaps some six years of training.

I agree, of course, that it is no fault of Stephen McKinnell that his period of residence in the United Kingdom since his adolescence is rather short, and that his residence here, when much younger, is of little value in assessing his potential qualities as an officer. Also, though we cannot for obvious reasons discuss in detail why a particular application is accepted or rejected, I do not wish to give the impression that there is more to this than the relatively short time that Stephen McKinnell has lived in the United Kingdom. It could well be that with the additional information which time will bring, we shall be able to give very favourable consideration to a further application for him to join the Royal Air Force.

I hope, indeed, that Stephen McKinnell will keep in touch with us. He will have noticed from section 11 of the pamphlet on Royal Air Force cadetships that cadet-ships are available to undergraduates under certain modified conditions, and within a couple of years he could be eligible for one of those.

I shall look at the Peter Thompson case and write to the hon. Gentleman once I have had an opportunity of studying it.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the pamphlet that is issued, and he quoted from it. In my correspondence with him, I accepted that the information in it, in regard to RAF cadetships, could be misleading as implying that there is no residence requirement for applicants of United Kingdom origin. We are therefore considering whether the pamphlet could be made clearer. These pamphlets necessarily have to summarise, in a line or two, many complicated regulations on many aspects of conditions of service.

The intention is that readers who are interested in general schemes outlined in the pamphlets should get in touch with the various recruiting authorities, which will be able to give them more detailed information on any particular points of concern, but I will ensure that the review of the wording of that pamphlet is carried out and I shall consider whether it should be adjusted.

I return to the case of Mr. Stephen McKinnell. I would like to make it clear beyond any doubt that his suitability for the general duties branch, in terms of medical fitness and aircrew aptitude, could be settled if he is willing to accept an offer, which I shall now make as an exceptional offer, to arrange for him to attend the officer and aircrew selection centre for this purpose. This would be an extension of the arrangements for testing in advance for younger cadets, which are referred to in paragraph 51 of the cadetship pamphlet. Successful completion of such tests would not place him under any obligation, nor would it provide a guarantee of eventual acceptance into the RAF.

If the hon. Gentleman would like to advise his constituent of that offer, we shall make arrangements for him to have an early medical and aircrew aptitude test, so that at least he will know that in the event of his making a fresh application in a year or two, he meets those basic conditions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a move towards his point. I make that response in the light of the moderate and genuine manner in which he has represented the interests of his constituents. I hope that satisfactorily answers the points that were raised.

Mr. Monro

I am grateful to the Minister for that suggestion. It is a high standard of medical examination and it is possible that Stephen will not pass it. If Stephen continued with his degree course at Glasgow university in October, is it possible in view of the three years he would have been in this country and in view of the recommendations that the Minister may have from his headmaster and others in Scotland, that the matter could be re-examined? I doubt whether the RAF will have a better qualified lad of Stephen's age.

Mr. Wellbeloved

Stephen McKinnell's case has been considered carefully, under the normal arrangements for considering such cases. I have reviewed the decision and decided not to exercise a waiver in this case, and therefore I cannot give a guarantee that Stephen would be accepted by the RAF before he has completed a period of residence in this country. That will allow the RAF to make an overall assessment along the lines that I have indicated. I hope that the offer to him to attend the officer and aircrew selection centre, and the clearing away of doubts and aptitudes and medical qualifications, will enable him to determine whether he wishes to wait for that qualifying period and make a fresh application or whether, as a result of the tests, he will want to consider some other career. In all the circumstances, that is the fairest offer that I can make.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.