Royal Irish Regiment

HC Deb 10 January 1996 vol 269 cc181-8 1.29 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I am privileged to have the opportunity to raise this subject. In doing so, I must in the first instance pay tribute to the work of the Royal Irish Regiment and its predecessor, the Ulster Defence Regiment, for serving the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom as a whole.

I am equally aware that, as more than 40,000 soldiers served in the regiments, there are likely to be some who did not match up to the required standards. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the overwhelming majority served faithfully, displaying remarkable courage, loyalty and devotion to duty. They did not have changes that Regular Army regiments have. Whether the latter came for three-month, six-month or two-year spells of duty, there was always a change, but soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment, as in the Ulster Defence Regiment, were on duty virtually 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and lived in the communities they served. They and their families were, accordingly, constant targets.

In that context, I must raise some concerns that have surfaced among some constituents, which have been shared by colleagues in my party as we have discussed the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) mentioned one of his constituents, whose commanding officer had assured him that he would be retained until a particular date. The CO was transferred and the new CO saw no reason to stand by the commitment. Chancy decisions have kept coming to light and raised concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) shares cases with us, as some of the rest of us have discovered, in which the tendency has been for soldiers to be discharged, as far as we can discover, only through guilt by association because somewhere along the line a relative had some strange connections. For example, a Scotsman who had served for years in the regiment was discharged—apparently because a distant relative had been brought on a charge before the courts many years previously and been acquitted. We suspect that that was the only reason for his discharge.

I shall illustrate my argument with the cases of three constituents. The first is Private A. C. I recognise that all Members of Parliament face the difficulty of delays in responses to correspondence. I wrote to this soldier's commanding officer on 6 February 1995. I was speedily acknowledged in a letter dated 8 February, which contained the information that the case was going to regimental headquarters—the focus for such matters. On 28 April, Lord Henley responded from the Ministry of Defence, simply to confirm that the soldier's services were no longer required". Private A. C. had put in for a non-commissioned officer course and was recommended for it. Under section 9.414 of the Queen's regulations of 1985, he was simply discharged. Lord Henley assured me that there was no question of stigma being attached". In a small community where people know one another quite intimately, whether as serving members of the regiment, relatives or neighbours, how could no stigma be attached when no rational explanation for the discharge was forthcoming?

Private A. C. refused to sign the form for his discharge. Recruitment to the regiment was still going on and, although a part-timer, he was on full-time duties. When I pressed the Department, Earl Howe responded, on 28 September, concerning the discharge on 27 February, saying that there was no reason to suppose that the necessity for his discharge will have altered. For that reason I am afraid I can see no useful purpose in encouraging him to apply for re-enlistment". How can one claim that no stigma is attached to a person who is discharged in such circumstances? He was even barred from applying for re-enlistment. As the old statement has it, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark, and the matter raises concern.

What a way that was to treat someone who has served his country. It reminds us of the heroes of the 1914–18 war, when it was Tommy this and Tommy that, but when they came back it was tommyrot, was it not? The second case is that of W. D., who joined on a part-time basis in October 1972. He rose to the rank of sergeant in October 1979 and was made redundant from his civilian job in 1984. At that point, he was asked to become OPS/maintenance, with full-time hours, but still on a part-time contract. Throughout his service, his confidentials never fell below "Very Good". In 1985, he suffered two aneurisms, which resulted in two operations in 13 weeks. In August 1994, when interviewed by his officer commanding, he was told that he would not be signed on again in October 1994, although, interestingly enough, another officer took him back for six months to work in the officer commanding's office.

In October 1994, W. D. was still three years under the upper age limit. At the same time, a corporal of the same age and in the same circumstances, was signed on for one year. That was the norm for those over 50 years of age with medicals—they were signed on yearly until the upper limit.

W. D's discharge declared him fit for a job in the RIR, but not for his civilian trade, which had been that of a welder-steelworker. When asked to sign the reason for his discharge, he wrote made redundant after 22¢ years service". As I understand it—the Minister may be in a position to clarify and confirm—the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 provided for application of certain parts, for example section 31 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, to the armed forces. No enabling order has been made to implement that, however. Why not? Is that a way of saving money at the expense of those who have already served the kingdom for a comparative pittance?

If the relevant legislation had been in operation, it would have enforced the EC rules maintaining that there should be no difference between part-time and full-time workers. It should be emphasised that, although on a part-time contract, Sergeant W. D. had been working full-time hours since becoming OPS/maintenance in the regiment, working between 48 and 56 hours per week. The regiment advertises under an equal opportunities banner, but in cases such as this it seeks cover under servant of the Crown legislation.

Having pressed the matter because I was concerned about it, I received a response from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. In a letter dated 29 August, he admitted that W. D. did not have a clean bill of health, and had been medically downgraded to a category below the minimum necessary for retention in the Army. He further stated: he left on completion of his engagement on 25 April 1995". W. D. did not have much option; he was not re-engaged.

The letter continued: a former part-time member of the Home Service element of the Royal Irish Regiment, Mr. D. is ineligible for a redundancy package". As W. D. had been working full-time hours on a part-time contract, the Ministry did not consider it worth while to compensate him for his discharge.

It was interesting to discover that W. D. was not medically downgraded in November 1984 and January 1995 after his operations; he was re-engaged for successive three-year periods in 1985, 1988 and 1991, and for six months in October 1994. In a letter dated 6 November 1995, Earl Howe admitted that W. D. had been medically downgraded, but claimed that his condition—largely attributable to smoking—did not merit a medical discharge. Perhaps I have a simple mind, but the reasoning appears twisted; perhaps the Minister can help me to unravel it. If W. D. had a medical condition and was not fit to continue, surely he could have been medically discharged and thus have qualified, if not for redundancy, at least for a pension after the service that he had given the regiment.

Would it be possible for W. D. to be supplied with his medical notes? Having requested such notes on behalf of a constituent in similar circumstances, I was denied them on grounds of confidentiality, but I had requested them not for myself but for a patient, and I believe that patients' notes are no longer confidential to doctors.

The third case that I wish to raise is rather different. It concerns someone whom I shall call J. G. My investigation revealed a degree of contradiction between the view of the commanding officer and the regiment, and that of the soldier concerned. The case, however, belongs to a category that causes considerable concern. The number of part-time members of the regiment was being reduced, usually on grounds of residence, when it was claimed that the soldiers concerned posed a security risk. J. G. found that unacceptable, as do I. He had served in North Antrim, but was then transferred to Belfast—to my constituency, in fact. While he was working there, it was suggested that he posed a security risk in the area, but if a volunteer accepts the risks involved I must be persuaded that he or she should not be allowed to serve. Indeed, people in such circumstances can often pick up information that is vital to the security services.

This case appears to involve a clash between a serving soldier and an officer. I do not refer to the commanding officer. I received letters about the case from the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). Only because I continued to press the matter did I receive a glimmer of information, suggesting that J. G.'s failing could have been an over-enthusiastic commitment to his regiment. He was not prepared to hide his membership of what he considered to be a proud regiment in which he was doing useful work.

That resulted in a 25-minute interview that was described as unfortunately becoming confrontational. Only three months earlier, however, the commanding officer involved had commended J. G. for his work on a course in England following a letter to the CO from the Chief Constable praising J. G.'s role in a bomb disposal incident. I believe that those three examples may he repeated throughout Northern Ireland. If someone is not doing his work properly, a good employer should sack him, giving reasons; but something is wrong when an employer suddenly dispenses with people whose work has been commended, and gives no adequate reason. It appears that soldiers in the RIR and UDR who had given long and faithful service have been released as part of a money-saving exercise. Those soldiers were not overly well paid for the hours that they served. It is scandalous if they were discharged on questionable grounds, and if those who were medically unfit for Army duties were not given proper pensions or redundancy payments.

Finally, may I ask the Minister whether a study akin to that into the Royal Ulster Constabulary is being carried out into the future role of the Royal Irish Regiment? I should like to think that a regiment that has played a useful part in the service of the country during a period of internal trouble, and whose main company is working with the rest of the Army, can continue to give service in Her Majesty's forces.

1.47 pm

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for giving us an opportunity to reflect on the Royal Irish Regiment and the exceptionally valiant service that it and its predecessors—the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers—have given the Crown over the past 25 years. It is especially welcome, given that we have only just passed the 25th anniversary of the mustering of the UDR in 1970.

The Royal Irish Regiment is a young regiment by Army standards. It was formed only in 1992 by the amalgamation of the Royal Irish Rangers—itself created as recently as 1968, although with far older antecedents in the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Irish Fusiliers—with the UDR. It is also the largest infantry regiment in the British Army, and contains the largest infantry battalion in the Army, the 3rd Royal Irish at Portadown.

The regiment is unique for other reasons, including its mixture of general service and home service battalions and the prominent and extraordinarily valued role played by part-time soldiers.

The operations of the Royal Irish Regiment and its predecessors have been of a quality, standard and challenge that is unique in all Army services. Its role was, and is, to serve alongside the general service battalions of the Army in their support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The regiment recruits from the local community, with service restricted to Northern Ireland. The local affiliations are clearly discernable in the structure of the six Royal Irish home service battalions, each with its own tactical area of responsibility exactly aligned with RUC divisional boundaries.

The hon. Gentleman is keenly aware that the 7th Royal Irish is based in his constituency. We therefore acknowledge his expertise in these matters. Although Soldiers in the UDR were subject to Queen's regulations, their unique role and the nature of their terms and conditions of service meant that Queen's regulations needed to be supplemented to reflect the differences between the UDR and the Regular Army. When the Royal Irish Regiment was formed in July 1992, it became an integral part of the Regular Army for the first time. Before continuing, I wish to pay tribute to the dedication and exceptional bravery of members of both the Ulster Defence Regiment and the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment in performing their difficult, dangerous, but always vital, task. They have acted in a way which people on this side of the water cannot understand, in circumstances sometimes so awful that they are impossible to describe, and with such gallantry that anyone who knew his or her true history would feel humble before it. They have made a huge and invaluable contribution to bringing about the current improved conditions in Northern Ireland.

The House should never forget that home service soldiers, by the very nature of their duty, live as part of the community that they protect, possibly even sharing their daytime work places with members of terrorist organisations. They have placed themselves and their families at enormous risk in their commitment to the fight against terrorism and we must never lose sight of the fact that, over the past 25 years, 201 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment have died as a result of terrorist action. A further 49 ex-regiment soldiers were murdered after leaving the Army and many, many more have been wounded or injured. The whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to their memory.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South said that it has been suggested that there is some kind of hidden agenda to run down the home service element of the Royal Irish Regiment. I know that that is a matter of concern to the hon. Gentleman and that he and some of his colleagues have maintained, correctly, a steady examination of our commitment to the home service battalions. He should have no fears on that count. I give him a categorical assurance that a rundown of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment is simply not on the agenda. I understand, however, how the hon. Gentleman's concerns may have arisen. Regrettably, and despite all our efforts, there has been a gradual decline in strength, particularly of part-time soldiers, from a high point in the 1970s. Full-time strength has been virtually unchanged until recently, when recruiting has suffered from the same problems as affect the Army as a whole, particularly the infantry. There has, however, been a drop of about 8 per cent. in part-time numbers, amounting to a decline of about 200 each year.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I appreciate the point that the Minister of State has made, but I have been told that there are applications to join the regiment part time but that the regiment cannot cope with the numbers.

Mr. Soames

If I may carry on and develop my argument, I hope to cover all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

During the past 12 months, 57 full-time and 285 part-time members of the regiment have been discharged for all reasons, including completion of service, voluntary retirement and on medical or disciplinary grounds. The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech was connected with discharges on administrative grounds. It is a complex and difficult area and I shall try to answer in full the points that he made. He will understand that I cannot deal with individual cases. He drew attention to a number of soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment who have been administratively discharged under section 9.414 of the Queen's regulations. That section, in common with the similar provision in the UDR regulations before it, is a catch-all for discharges that do not come under other, more clearly defined, sections.

Administrative discharge may be used in the Army's interests in a variety of circumstances, including temperamental unsuitability or failure to meet basic training or fitness requirements. It may also be invoked at a soldier's request and has been used where individuals have been misinformed about their circumstances or terms and conditions of service; or where an individual has concerns for the safety of his or her family because of the nature of his or her employment in the Army.

I should also make it clear that the section applies, like all others in the Queen's regulations, across the whole of the Regular Army, and it is always applied with great care. In every case, soldiers can see the application for discharge and individuals are given an opportunity to discuss the application with their commanding officer. In every case, soldiers are given at least 48 hours in which to take advice and consider whether to make a statement about the application for discharge. All this is carefully considered by the brigade commander before the papers are submitted to the Ministry of Defence for final decision. It is an elaborate procedure—deliberately so—to ensure that the individual's interests are taken into full consideration.

In a handful of cases, security implications may prevent full disclosure to the soldier of the exact details of the reasons for discharge. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into further detail, but I give him my assurance that, on the rare occasions when they occur, such cases are given the most thorough scrutiny and must be completely justified before action is taken to discharge a soldier.

Soldiers leave the Army for many reasons, mainly at their own request. The policy on discharge is applied evenly across the whole Army according to the same regulations and policies. There is no policy to apply section 9.414 more rigorously or frequently in the Royal Irish Regiment, whether general service, home service, full time or part time, than in the rest of the Army.

In the Army as a whole, that type of administrative discharge was used in some 800 cases last year. Just four of them were in the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. It is a mechanism that is used when it is appropriate to the circumstance, no more and no less.

I cannot debate individual cases across the Floor of the House, not least because I do not know the details. If the hon. Member chooses to get in touch with me, I shall happily have them investigated. He mentioned pensions. Because soldiers of the home service battalions were required to serve only in Northern Ireland, their terms and conditions of service in the UDR were structured differently from those for soldiers with a global commitment to service. I recognise that the alignment of the two systems has created anomalies and problems, and I have a great deal of sympathy on that score.

Between 1970 and 1977, all members of the UDR completing five years' service were eligible for a pension payable on reaching 55 years of age. From 1977, all new members of the UDR and, from 1992 of the Royal Irish Regiment, have been subject to the terms of the armed forces pension scheme. Under those terms, payment of an immediate pension before the age of 60 requires completion of 22 years' service.

In normal circumstances, soldiers in the regiment can expect their service to end after a maximum of 22 years. Those with fewer than 22 years' service but more than two are also eligible for a pension, the size of which depends on their length of service, but it is payable on reaching the age of 60.

We recognise that there are problems. Where possible, we seek to ensure that individuals' needs are met through extensions of service, if necessary to the age of 60, provided that they are fit, there is work for them to do, and they are not blocking the structure of the regiment. Yesterday, I received the Duke of Abercorn and Sir Dennis Faulkner to discuss one or two of those questions, on which they made the most robust and powerful representations. We shall deal with them carefully and in detail.

Re-engagement has never been an automatic right and it has, rightly, always been at the discretion of commanding officers. It will remain necessary to balance the wishes of individuals against the needs of the service. I know that applications for extensions of service up to a total of 22 years will be dealt with sympathetically, but I would not wish to bind the hands of those in command with any general undertaking.

However, I hope that, in future, when employability in future is considered, it will be done across the regiment rather than on a battalion basis. My Department is looking carefully at how that might be done.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate the continued importance of the home service element of the Royal Irish Regiment in maintaining security in Northern Ireland. I have stated unequivocally that there is absolutely no policy of deliberately running down the home service strength. Indeed, I ask hon. Members from the Province to draw the attention of their constituents, male and female, Catholic and Protestant, to the value of service in the Royal Irish Regiment and the many splendid opportunities that such service can provide for the attainment of recognised qualifications.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about some individual cases and I shall deal with those as sympathetically as I can if he will raise them in detail with me.

May I conclude with my own warm tribute to the Royal Irish Regiment? No other regiment in the British Army has a contemporary record of such gallantry and distinction. The House will wish to salute it and all its deeds.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.