Ulster Defence Regiment (Recruitment) (Hansard, 8 December 1982)

§ Mr. Harold McCusker (Armagh)
I shall not take up too much of the House's time, but it is perhaps appropriate to take this opportunity to express our sympathy—I am sure that the Minister will welcome the opportunity to express his—to the families of the young Service men and others killed in Northern Ireland in the past 48 hours. We also send our good wishes to those who were injured, and hope that they will quickly be restored to full health and strength.
Although the Ulster Defence Regiment is a regiment of the British Army, it is unique. Just as those regular soldiers have paid the supreme price, many of the Ulster Defence Regiment have also done so. Most ordinary people in Northern Ireland—I can no longer say the vast majority, because unfortunately about 100,000 people voted for the associates of the murderers of the past 48 hours—deeply regret the death of any regular soldier in the Province. Given the opportunity, we would defend the Province ourselves. If necessary, we would lay down our lives, as many of our neighbours have done, in defence of the Province.
Many regular soldiers are still deployed and killed in the Province because the UDR has never realised its full potential and has never grown to its full strength or been deployed adequately. It could have defeated the terrorist threat and the regular forces might well then have been declared redundant and reduced to the garrison strength that has always existed in the Province. When I see how many of my neighbours have been murdered and the circumstances in which they were murdered, I wonder why so many of them volunteer to serve in the UDR. Many of them are signing their death warrants when they enlist.
I am disturbed because I frequently receive complaints from my constituents—as my colleagues do—whose applications to join have been refused. There often seems, at least to us, to be no good reason for the refusal. I shall cite a couple of instances. I shall not identify those involved and I do not expect the Minister to respond in detail. However, by expressing our distress, I hope that we can ensure that when we appeal on behalf of those whose applications have been turned down, it will be accepted that we do not do so lightly. We normally try to make inquiries in our own time to decide whether the applicant is of the right calibre for the UDR. The appeal should not be arbitrary or merely rubber stamp the original decision.
I have two examples which cause concern. The first involves a constituent of 26 who is married with two children and has never been in any trouble. He has never been associated with any political or paramilitary organisation. In the past five or six years he has applied five times to join the UDR and been turned down. Several of his family are members of the UDR. One is a sergeant and another a lance-corporal. Six other members of his family are privates in the UDR. A cousin was killed while serving in the UDR.
My constituent checked with the local police who say that they know of no reason why he should be refused. He has references from local business men and serving members of the UDR. He checked with his doctor that his 956 health was appropriate. I told him to apply again and that I would write a letter of support. He had to tell me that he had been refused once again.
No wonder I question the review procedure. If a man is healthy, has references and so many members of his family serve in the UDR, if he is married and settled and has no record of involvement in paramilitary activity, what reason can there be for saying to him "You are not entitled to defend your Province"?
Another case involves a young man who appears to be able to defend his country against the Russian threat since he has been a member of the Territorial Army for almost 10 years. He has been a corporal for the past six years. On exercises in Germany he has taken important strategic positions. He is thought able to defend the United Kingdom, but when he applied to join the UDR to defend his Province he was told that he was not a suitable person. Inquiries have been made and it has been established that there are reasons, but to me and to many people in Northern Ireland it is strange that a person should be thought fit to defend the United Kingdom, but not fit and able to defend the Province.
At a time when the UDR age structure is becoming top heavy, when there is a need for young men and men between 35 and 45, it is disappointing that such refusals should occur.
I make no apology for the men in their fifties. They are the backbone of the UDR and will remain so. But we should not expect part-time 50-year-olds to measure up to the standards of 19-year-olds. In training the 50-year-olds, who may have already done a day's work, are expected to achieve a high standard of physical fitness. We should remember that they are capable of doing the job even if they cannot match a teenager or someone in their early twenties.
Allied to recruitment is leadership. I do not like to criticise the leadership, particularly at this time, but there is a growing demand in the Province for the Ulsterisation of the upper ranks of the UDR. There is a feeling that many members of the upper ranks are not familiar with the position and that they become familiar with it only when they are ready to move on.
An example of insensitivity was shown by the commanding officer of a battalion in my constituency a year ago following the death of the Rev. Robert Bradford. He issued the following order: As you are no doubt aware, there have been six assassination attempts throughout the Province this week, including one in our own area. The result of these attacks is five dead and two very seriously injured who are not yet off the danger list. Whilst it is bad enough for off-duty personnel to be attacked, from a broader point of view the killing of the Rev. Robert Bradford MP in Belfast today could well have wider repercussions Province-wide. For this reason, it has been decided that we will adopt a lower profile. That order was put on the notice board in battalion headquarters. He says For this reason, it has been decided that we will adopt a lower profile at a time when the men in that battalion believed that, if anything, they should demonstrate a higher profile. We also have to bear in mind that leadership factor in recruitment to the UDR.
I hope that the Minister realises that I am not trying to knock the UDR or to criticise the selection procedures. I am well aware that they must be stringent and carefully controlled. However, that must be balanced against the position in the Province. 957 It is easy to be sneered at by association. A member of someone's family may be involved in paramilitary activity. But because one's father, brother or cousin is involved in such activity, it does not mean that one will be tempted to join. It is easy to view a person's political attitudes and come to the conclusion that that person is not fit to join the UDR. If we do that, in a few years the regiment will be reduced to a state where it cannot play the role that all of us wish to see it play. I hope that the day will come when there will be no need to have regular, full-time soldiers in the Province, but that the UDR and the police can handle our security problems.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)
I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). His remarks about the regular soldiers and civilian employees of the Army involved in the disaster on Monday night will be endorsed not only by the Government but by every hon. Member.
I need not remind the House that the UDR, which was formed in 1970, continues to play a vital role in maintaining security in Northern Ireland and in providing first-line support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Tribute has been paid many times in this place to the regiment's growing professionalism and continuing dedication, courage and resilience. I can only express my admiration for the way in which adversity serves only to heighten its resolve. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that tonight and to pay my respects to the UDR and its activities.
The Ulster Defence Regiment is just as much a part of the British Army as any other regiment, but it is also non-sectarian. Although the number of Catholics who have enlisted to date is smaller than we would wish, if the UDR is to be recognised by all responsible and fair-minded sections of that troubled community as impartial and non-partisan, it must continue to recruit from all sides of the religious divide and from all walks of life men who can demonstrate that they meet, in all respects, the standards, disciplines and fitness required for service in this fine regiment.
Recruitment to the UDR is conducted entirely on the basis of the merit of each individual's application, in competition with others. Although there has been a slight drop in overall numbers during the past year, the number of the permanent cadre has increased, which continues a welcome trend that has taken place during several years. The standards required for entry must be set high, and deliberately so, if we are to maintain the professionalism and expertise of the regiment that the Government consider is essential in the present security position in the Province.
Clearly, then, it follows that there may be many reasons why an individual's application to enlist in the UDR is not accepted. In common with a number of employers, however, it is not, nor has it ever been, the policy of my Department to disclose the reasons for rejection. Certainly, the House will appreciate that in the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland today there is a special responsibility to ensure that any individual who has extreme or violent political predilections is not permitted to enlist in the UDR.

§ Mr. William Ross (Londonderry)
Is my political outlook the reason why I was not acceptable to the UDR?

§ Mr. Wiggin
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot disclose the reasons why he was not admitted to the UDR. If he was not admitted, he was not admitted. To give the reasons would be entirely in breach of what I have just told the House.
If we were to recruit people who, for one reason or another—rightly and, on occasion, wrongly—were unsuitable for the UDR, we should seriously jeopardise the credibility of the regiment and the Government's aim of ensuring impartiality in the security forces' role and operations. In addition, each candidate who applies to enlist must demonstrate that he meets in all respects the physical and mental requirements of service and that there are no doubts about his character and integrity.
Clearly, then, some degree of scrutinising of applicants is absolutely essential, but it would not be in the public interest to reveal the nature and extent of that scrutiny, since to do so might be of benefit to any potential terrorist or the organisation to which he belongs. To embark on a detailed explanation of the reasons why an individual was not accepted might also be of use to the terrorist, since it would, by implication, reveal the nature of the inquiries made in such cases. I am sure that the House will appreciate, particularly in the light of the tragic and despicable events on Monday night, why it would be irresponsible of me to say more on this matter.
There are a number who fail to meet the grade, and when hon. Members write to me, I reply to them saying that it is not our policy to disclose reasons for rejection. While I attach tremendous importance to the professional judgment of those responsible for recruitment, I have always sought to assure hon. Members that I have personally reviewed the circumstances of each case that they have raised to satisfy myself completely that the grounds for rejection are equitable and sound. I should like to take this opportunity of reaffirming that this policy of personal ministerial review of each case that is brought to my attention will continue, even though, for the reasons I have given, specific reasons for a rejection will not be given.
I am in difficulty about the two cases that the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not wish to speak in code, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was right not to name names. However, I can tell him that I have again reviewed the circumstances of the second case in some detail, and I am completely satisfied that the decision not to accept that man was both justified and sound. In respect of the first case, the gentleman concerned has made four applications to enlist so far this year, the last occasion being on 24 November, and on each occasion the application was rejected. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member's letter to me about this case arrived only a few days ago, and I have therefore not yet had a chance to go through all the reviews that I would like to do in this instance. However, in preparation for this debate, I have looked at the case. I shall write to the hon. Member, but it would be wrong to raise any great hopes.
I know well that hon. Members are wary, and understandably so, of the bureaucratic machine when it refuses to disclose specific information. Hon. Members are rightly concerned to protect their constituents' interests and to ensure that they have been equitably treated. This is perfectly understandable and it is a concept that I share, 959 but in the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland I do not believe that it would be in the public interest to modify our existing policy.