HL Deb 20 March 1967 vol 281 cc637-56

8.19 p.m.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL rose to call attention to the nationality rules which are applied to those wishing to join the Armed Forces; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible at this late hour, but I am afraid that I shall detain your Lordships for a little longer than the Bill which has just passed your Lordships' House. That was one of the shortest and happiest moments I can remember in this House. The object of my Motion is to draw attention to the nationality rules as they apply to the British-born sons and daughters of Polish and Czech naturalised British fathers married to English women. These rules are applied, as I think your Lordships know, before these people can be admitted to one of Her Majesty's Services.

In case your Lordships are not aware of the rules perhaps I may explain them briefly. I think I have them right, because I got the information from the Ministry of Defence; but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is to answer this Motion on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, will correct me if I am wrong. The rules cover all new entrants except those enlisting as other ranks in the Army. They require that both of the applicant's parents should be either British subjects or citizens of the Irish Republic, or otherwise should have been born in a Commonwealth country or in the Irish Republic. I also understand—and this information I have received from the Ministry of Defence—that the rules are not inflexible, and that it is possible for these requirements to be waived, on the authority of the appropriate Minister of Defence. This is in fact, I understand, frequently done, and each request for this special dispensation is carefully considered on its merits.

I am also informed that the rules are intended to be in the interests of the applicants themselves, and that the reason for applying them to future officers and noncommissioned officers in the R.A.F., and petty officers and warrant officers in the Royal Navy is that, if accepted, applicants cannot be offered a full career without at some time or other having access to classified information; and when that occasion arises they will, of course, be subject to security inquiries, security checks, in order to establish their reliability.

There is special consideration in respect of persons whose fathers are of alien origin, in case they might be liable to pressure through having relatives living behind the Iron Curtain. I should have thought, from the number of unfortunate cases which have occurred in this country during the past few years, that it was not only persons of alien origin who should be suspect in this respect.

No one would dispute that it is most important that those who have access to classified information should be reliable, but in my opinion they are not more likely to be unreliable simply because they have a father of Polish or Czech origin, or even some relative living behind the Iron Curtain. As I have just said during the past few years we have had a large number of cases of British subjects of British birth, and with British parents, either defecting or betraying their country's secrets, so that we must not be too smug about this matter; and, so far as I know, there has not been a single example of family blackmail being responsible for these defections or for these betrayals. Greed, criminal activities, sexual perversion, reckless spending have mostly been the actuating motives in the modern history of espionage.

I do not know what your Lordships think about this form of discrimination, but I can tell you what the Poles and the Czechs living in this country, now British subjects, who fought so gallantly for us during the last war, and particularly during the Battle of Britain, think of it—and I, for one, agree with them. They think it quite wrong that a citizen of this country, born in this country and brought up as British, should be subject to discrimination, not because of his or her conduct, not because of his or her activities or his or her attitudes, but because of something over which he or she had no control whatsover; that the fact of the previous nationality of one of a man's parents pre-judges his individual rights as a British subject.

I believe that as recently as last October the Prime Minister expressed the view that the Polish community in this country— and I am going to quote from the words which I understand he used: should cease to be treated as a separate entity and should be increasingly integrated into the wider British community. I have no reason to suppose that the Prime Minister did not mean what he said; and, assuming that he did, those Britons living in this country who are of Polish origin, or one of whose parents is of Polish origin, may be forgiven, I think, for wondering whether the application of these nationality rules is the best way of achieving this integration into the wider British community which the Prime Minister apparently desires. We must not be surprised, surely, if they come to a very different conclusion; namely, that they are, and are to remain, a separate entity, and are treated as such by their British-born compatriots.

These men and these women can surely be excused if they are discouraged—I might even say embittered—by the realisation that they are second-class citizens to whom, whatever their individual merits may be, some careers are closed for ever—until a national emergency arises, when their services doubtless will again be needed as those of their fathers, or perhaps their grandfathers, were needed and who volunteered in the stark years now over a quarter of a century ago.

With your Lordships' indulgence, I propose to give a few particulars of the many cases in which the British born children of a naturalised Polish father and a British born mother have been refused entry into one of Her Majesty's Services. I have, of course, already given the particulars and the names to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is to reply to this Motion on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. One concerns the son of a well-known Polish born journalist now in this country, who merely wanted to join the R.A.F. University Squadron in Oxford, but who was rejected after veto by the Air Ministry. In his case there was not even the excuse that his family have relations behind the Iron Curtain, because they have none.

Some of the other cases are as follows: James Marczynski—and I am sure those who speak the Polish language better than I do will pardon my pronunciation or mispronunciation of some of these names—was refused entry into the Royal Navy merely because his father is Polish born. Helena Dudzinski was refused entry to the W.R.A.F. for the same reason, although her father has been naturalised for 16 years. Jan Sobczak was refused entry to the R.A.F., and yet his sister, Marsha, who has, of course, exactly the same family background—and this would seem to show that the rules are not always worked very sensibly—was accepted as a nurse in the Royal Navy. Then there was Michael Paradowski, who was refused entry into the R.A.F. His father was Polish born and his mother British born. This boy has been serving as a corporal in the 56th Squadron of the Air Training Corps, and thought and talked of nothing but the Air Force.

Then there was Neil Karpowicz, who was refused entry into the R.A.F. as a security risk, although he had been an Air Force Cadet since he was 12 years old. He was so upset about this that he has since emigrated to Australia under what I believe is known as the Big Brother Movement. He has two younger brothers, and his mother is wondering what the position is going to be about them, because they, too, want to do what their father did and serve in the British Air Force. The case of Neil Karpowicz seems to me particularly absurd, because although the son was regarded as a security risk the mother, just because she was British born, was accepted as a prison officer and worked in the prison service for 18 months, during which time she was in constant touch with two prisoners as well-known in espionage circles as Helen Kroger and Ethel Gee, which surely is a rather Gilbertian situation.

From time to time I have heard the Prime Minister animadvert against the brain drain, and pour scorn on those who have been and are so unpatriotic as to leave this country because the prospects here are, if I may use a British understatement, "not too bright". It is a sobering thought that, had these regulations been in force many years ago, neither Winston Churchill nor Harold Macmillan could have been officers in the Army without full inquiry as to their antecedents. Mr. Shinwell could not have served even as a rating in the Navy, let alone become Secretary of State for War, without a similar inquisition being carried out.

My Lords, in my opinion there is really no justification for such discrimination. In Britain, in France, in Canada, in Australia and, above all, in the United States of America, there are masses of young people whose parents come from Eastern Europe and who still have relatives there. In the United States' Armed Forces alone there must be hundreds of thousands of such people. Yet there have been no known cases of attempts to bring pressure on such people by blackmail concerning their relatives. In any event, as one distinguished subject of Polish origin has recently said: The children of people who came to this country and remained here because of their love of freedom are much less susceptible to Communist propaganda than many of their British born compatriots with British born parents. Why should Soviet agents in search of military secrets look for somebody with an aunt in Poland, a sister in Czechoslovakia, or a cousin in Hungary, when they can probably find many young people belonging to the many subversive organisations that exist in this country to-day?

Of course, no one will dispute the fact that those who are going to have access to classified information must be, so far as it is possible to ensure, persons unlikely to be a security risk, but is there any reason to apprehend that a British subject born in Britain whose father merely happens to have been originally of Polish or Czech nationality should be more suspect than the offspring of a British born father and mother? I think those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. May I remind your Lordships of one or two names, in case you have forgotten? Burgess, Maclean, Alan Nun May, Philby, Houghton, Ethel Gee, Bossard and Sergeant Allen. None of their parents were of alien origin but of true British stock. However, it does not seem to have made any difference.

I know the noble Lord who will reply for the Government will probably give several details of cases where we all know these rules have been waived. I hope he may be able to go a little farther than that and say there may be some revision of the nationality rules or their application in the future. I hope they may be discontinued and that some precautions will be taken in the future to ensure that the children of British born parents are suitable to join Her Majesty's Forces as are taken in respect of those whose parents happen to be of alien origin. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

8.33 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has dwelt a little upon this matter on the basis that there is discrimination. I know that in wide circles in this country to-day discrimination is a dirty word. But I think he must accept, and I believe he did, that there is another sort of discrimination which is justifiable, where security is at issue. I hope that when he was making those remarks he was not using the pejorative sense of the word, at any rate too forcibly, because if he was I fear I must most profoundly disagree with him. I think that above all those who are in charge of our defence and of our security must be allowed to make rules in order to protect those matters, although of course there is no doubt that noble Lords in this House, and Members in another place, may obviously be allowed to criticise them if they consider they are not right.

Again, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I think dealt with this on a rather narrow basis of the rules for the Armed Forces. I think he correctly described them in saying they applied to all except other ranks in the Army. As I understand this matter—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will tell me if I am wrong—the rules which apply to members of the Armed Forces under the nationality category are only a part of the general nationality rules which apply now and have for a considerable length of time applied to recruitment for the Civil Service. The particular rules to which the noble Lord has drawn attention are, I think, to be found in paragraph 12(2) of the nationality rules which, as I say, have been in force for a long time, although I think not necessarily overtly, in the case of the Civil Service, and these were then applied in 1965 specifically to entry to the Armed Forces.

The other point which should be borne in mind is that although the noble Lord has dealt specifically and especially with people from Poland or from Czechoslovakia, or whose origins were in those countries, neither in the case of the Civil Service nor in the case of the Armed Forces do the rules apply specifically to them. They apply to all who are of alien origin. If I may, I will deal with this on a slightly broader basis. I hope it will not be thought that I am in any way at all disparaging the Polish and Czech communities in this country. I was at school during the war and, therefore, perhaps this often passed me by a little more than other noble Lords. Since that time I have become fully aware of how much I and other citizens of this country are indebted to those who came to help in our Armed Forces, and elsewhere, from those two nations, and elsewhere; and I do not wish for one moment that anything I say should be thought to be a criticism of them, or in any way a lack of welcome to those in this country.

The first thing I should like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to do, if he would be so good, is to try to put this matter a little in perspective. Of course this problem arises acutely in the case of Poles and Czechs who now live here, and their children. I have no doubt there are other applicants with nationalities different from theirs, or whose origins are different, who also fall to be dealt with under these rules, and perhaps he might give some details of this matter, so that we may see that it is not only these two nationalities which are involved.

I have done my best to study this matter, and the thing that seems to me a little obscure is this. I would, as I said, agree that the right sort of discrimination is essential in this matter. As I understand it, there are, as it were, two sieves through which applicants for these jobs have to pass. The same thing applies whether it concerns the Ministry of Defence or the Cabinet Office, or the Ministry of Public Building and Works, which are the Ministries now affected by paragraph 12(2), or whether it concerns the Armed Forces. First of all, in order to get in they have to pass the test of the nationality rules or else to obtain individual exemption from the head of Department concerned. As I understand it, that is not all. Even if they get in through the first sieve, that does not mean they are necessarily allowed to have access to classified information. Before anyone, whether he is of alien origin or British origin, is allowed to have access to classified information he is required to be cleared again by security.

I think it was in anticipation of this second sieve (if I may so call it) that the Press release, which announced the introduction of these rules for the Armed Forces, had a certain amount to say. What it said was: In order to avoid embarrassment both to the Service, and to the individuals concerned, persons entering as officers, in all three Services, and as ratings or other ranks in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, must not he placed in a position where they may find they cannot be given a full and useful career. Unless I have misunderstood this—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton could make it plain—precisely the same risk of embarrassment could arise in the case of a British national. He is allowed in without having to pass the sieve nationality rules because they do not apply to him, but nevertheless before he is allowed access to this classified information he is again subject to being cleared by security. If this is so, then he is in exactly the same position as a person of alien origin who has got that far.

Is there a difference at the earlier stage? An alien or somebody of foreign stock who has been admitted to the Army, the Navy or the Air Force as an officer must obviously get to a certain stage in his career without learning anything more than training matters and matters of general public interest. But at one stage or another the moment will come when he has to have classified information. Then he is put through the same security clearance I understand, as his British born colleague. If that is so why is it—I wonder whether the noble Lord can answer—that in the Services and in the Civil Service there has to be this initial check before that stage is ever reached? Is it found—and I wonder whether the noble Lord can give figures on this—that security clearance in fact rejects more people who have been passed through the dispensation because they are of alien stock than it rejects those of British stock?

Alternatively, are there large-scale exemptions from the nationality rules even for those people who are of alien stock? Do they have the further security clearance which may come in due course which allows them then to have access to classified information? Unless there is some point in this dual clearance system, I would suggest that it might have been done once and for all, and at the time which covers each stage of being given access to classified information. That was the time to deal with it. Or is the noble Lord saying that there is such a risk of embarrassment to people of alien stock that they must be prevented in the first instance from coming into the Service or Civil Service at all?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, perhaps I might correct the noble Viscount on one point. This is only for information. This rule applies only in part of the Civil Service. A large part of the Civil Service is not subject to the more rigorous form of rule to which he is referring, and therefore this creates a wider area of flexibility.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I appreciate that. It is perfectly true that paragraph 12(1) of the rules which applies to the Departments other than those which I have mentioned is a wider one. Nevertheless, there are criteria laid down there which I imagine have the same raison d'être behind them, which could result in people of alien origin being rejected. Therefore it seems to me that we have these two methods of selection or rejection which might, I should have thought—unless the noble Lord can give some reason to the contrary—be reduced to a rather more simple matter.

I should be glad to hear what the noble Lord has to say, because I feel that if we find that those who get through the first exemption constitute the majority of the people who apply, then in fact these rules are not really observed more than in the disregard of them, and that we might just as well stick to the final security classification when the person reaches the rank when he should receive it. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool has raised this matter, if only for the fact that what seems a rather absurd method of administration might at least he made more plain to me, even if it is already quite clear to all other noble Lords.

8.45 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I have no doubt, and I do not think anyone in this Chamber would have any doubt, that the subject of the Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, needed to be raised. Naturally, and inevitably, a great deal of the ground has already been covered by him and by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. Nor have I any doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is to reply, and ourselves (and perhaps I may say particularly myself) are bending our efforts, and by character must always bend our efforts, to exactly the same just end in this particular context, always commensurate with the proper security and protection of the Services and of the defence of the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on October 27, answered a much longer and wider debate with particular application to the Poles (to-day, of course, we are discussing other nationalities), and he was asked by my noble friend Lord Barnby whether it was true that British subjects born of Polish parents in this country were proscribed from commissions in Her Majesty's Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, replied: I may as well correct the noble Lord right away by telling him that that is not true."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/10/66; col. 385.] This is a worthy and characteristic effort on the part of the noble Lord to be absolutely concise. But all efforts at being concise are liable to misconstruction. I have looked up the meaning of the word "proscribe" in the Oxford Dictionary, and I see that it means: To put out of protection of the law, to banish, to exile. Of course, the noble Lord, in applying this meaning of the word "proscribed", was perfectly right: because no foreign national, no child born of foreign parents, has been put out of protection of the law, or banished or exiled, for applying to join the Armed Services of this country.

The other meanings of the word "proscribe" are "to reject", or "to denounce as dangerous". It seems to me clear that in some cases which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned, this meaning, and therefore this sanction, has been applied against them. I am not going to catalogue the cases that have occurred. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool catalogued a number, and I think I was closely acquainted with one of them. I take it that it is too much of a coincidence to suppose that we were not thinking of the same one. Perhaps I might describe it in greater detail, since it is no longer before us: the problem is closed.

This particular case concerned a boy born of Polish Jewish parents who wished to join a university air squadron because, and precisely because, he wished to repay in some way what this country had tried to do for his parents' country. His application to join was refused. It was, in fact, during the time of the previous Administration, of which I was at the time a member; and I fought very hard indeed, totally unsuccessfully, to make this understood. In this particular case there was no question of a security risk. The parents' relatives had all been either killed in Poland, under the German occupation, or had escaped. The boy had literally no relatives still living in Poland upon whom pressure could be put; nor was it possible for his father or mother to return to Poland, because the father had identified himself to such an extent with the anti-Communist element of Poland that he would not dare to set foot in his native country. Therefore it was difficult—indeed, impossible—to see how the danger that pressure might be put on the parents could apply in this case. Yet despite all the efforts that I was able to make it was impossible to apply a waiver.

There have been various references to this matter in another place, and they have been referred to by my noble friend, so I shall not go very deeply into the matter as outlined there. But on November 10, 1964, a great deal of reference was made to the regulations protecting this country against the dangers engendered by bringing the sons, and I suppose the daughters, of foreign-born nationals into the Services. My noble friend has already referred to the way in which these regulations are applied. The main barrier seems to be contained—and I will not quote the whole regulation—in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(iv) of the Regulations applying to the Foreign Service, and I believe to the Armed Services. It says that the main waiver can be applied if he satisfies the Secretary of State that he is so closely connected with a country or territory within the Commonwealth either by ancestry, upbringing or residence, or by reason of national service, that an exception may properly be made in his favour and he may in fact be permitted to join the Armed Services. I do not think, from my own experience, that this waiver is sufficiently frequently or humanely applied. It is sad that this should be so wasteful.

My noble friend Lord Thurlow, in the debate on October 27 last year, spoke from personal experience of the value of Polish and, by implication, other citizens of allied countries in our Armed Services, some of whom have achieved great seniority and distinction in our Services since the war. It seems totally illogical to me that the children of such people, men capable of giving such worthwhile and valuable service to our country in the Armed Services, should be excluded without a proper understanding and appreciation of their wish to serve.

It seems to me that the regulations are in fact too rigid, both in their basis and in their application, too little thought out to offer an advantage on balance between what we need from those from other countries who live among us, and the danger that a tiny percentage of them might conceivably offer should they be engaged in the Armed Services. I feel that there is reasonable cause to institute a review of these regulations, certainly of the way in which they are applied, in order to bring about an improvement in the position of those who wish to serve this country and thereby providing an advantage to ourselves in matters of defence.

8.55 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I make no complaint at all about either the subject matter or the way in which this particular Motion has been moved, although I find some difficulty in answering some of the points which have been made. However, I will do my best to deal with all those which I am in a position to answer, and certainly to consider some of the particular arguments that have been used. It may be useful if I outline the recent history of nationality rules for the Services.

Before September, 1965, the published rules for entry to the Armed Services were broadly that candidates must be British subjects or citizens of the Irish Republic and the children of parents who were at the time of application (or at death, if they were no longer alive), British subjects or Irish citizens. In practice, however, the Services, and particularly the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, have found it necessary, for reasons which derive from the nature of Service employment, to be a good deal more restrictive. This gave rise to a situation which I, as one of the Ministers of Defence at the time, found rather intolerable. We found ourselves enforcing certain rules without their being published; and, furthermore, we found ourselves in the position of turning down applicants for the Services without ever having indicated on the application form the existence of these particular regulations.

I say this, not in order to justify the present Government but because this is a problem that faces all Governments. I am bound to say that when my right honourable friend decided to examine the operation of the nationality rules we took very much into account this question of allowing people to understand the realities of the situation. In doing so—and I would emphasise this point—we took fully into account not only the Services' requirements but also the position of an individual who wants a Service career. We thought it unfair to take a man into the Services if it was likely that his career would be restricted.

I listened very carefully to the interesting arguments put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lords, Lord St. Oswald and Lord Russell of Liverpool, but before I come on to deal with the other points, I should like to make clear that if a man is to have a full career in the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force, or indeed as an officer in the Army, he will almost certainly at some time or other have access to highly classified information. Before he can have this access he will be subject at that time to security inquiries, to establish his reliability. Let me make clear that, when talking about reliability, I am not talking only in terms of an individual's own integrity, but also about the circumstances in which he may be situated and which may, in fact, increase the risk of pressure upon him. Persons who are subject to such risk are not given access to highly classified information unless a number of circumstances prevail which lead to the risk being discounted or otherwise minimised.

At this point I move into a field in which I shall have to ask your Lordships to accept that I cannot go very deeply, for I shall be impinging on the field of security. This is not to suggest that we should not take it as far as we can. I can only repeat again the argument that in regard to those people of foreign birth or of foreign parentage whose parents were born in another country or who were orginally of foreign origin and who have relatives living behind the Iron Curtain, there is assessed to be a distinct risk that pressure may be brought to bear on them, through their relatives. This is a threat that we cannot disregard. Noble Lords may say that this can be overestimated and that we in this country are not entitled to cast stones or to be too smug; and I would entirely agree. Certainly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in this matter. But the proposition which I am putting before your Lordships is: regardless of that, ought we, in fact, to widen the area of risk? I can only say to your Lordships that this is assessed as a threat which we cannot disregard.

When we considered this matter, and my right honourable friend had to take his decision against this background, he came to the conclusion that it was in the best interests both of the Service and of the individual to take this factor, where it was known, into consideration at the outset. It was therefore decided that in future, for entry into the Royal Navy—and I am putting this in very broad terms—and the Royal Air Force, and for officer entry into the Army, the Services should openly adopt the special nationality rules which have been operated for many years for civilian employment under the Ministry of Defence, and certain other Departments of State—and I stress "certain other Departments of State".

These rules require, broadly, that the candidate and his parents must be British subjects or citizens of the Irish Republic by birth, and have been born in a Commonwealth country or the Irish Republic. The rules are not inflexible: there is provision for them to be waived on the authority of the Secretary of State for Defence. And, in fact, they are waived in a considerable number of cases. The Army has a much higher proportion of non-sensitive posts than the other two Services, and it is therefore more easily possible to offer automatically a full career in a non-sensitive Arm to an other rank, though not to officers. Therefore, the restricted nationality rules, simply as rules, are not applied to applicants for enlistment into the Army.

It has, I think, been argued that we should take the applicant as he stands, and consider the nationality factor along with other factors when the time comes to make the full security inquiries which arise in relation to posts of a sensitive nature. The view which the Government have taken (and in the present circumstances I believe it is right) is that, on balance, it is better to have fairly strict rules, to make them clear—and let me repeat, again, that they were not made clear before—and that these rules should be waived in appropriate cases, rather than to accept everyone and then find later that they cannot be given a full and useful career.

It could be suggested that we should put all applicants through the security procedure at the outset. But I believe that this also would be objectionable; and it would be unacceptable to public opinion, I think, if we were to subject applicants to the security procedure where it was not necessary. It would also be bad security. There is here a quite fundamental clash in relation to the rights of the individual. Any Government Department—and the Service Departments, as noble Lords know, have the very closest regard to the welfare of those in the Armed Forces—and anyone in this situation must, on the one hand, weigh the national security, and, on the other, the opportunities for the individual in the Services.

It is quite easy—indeed, it is all too easy—in any administrative set-up to point to anomalies and to pour a certain amount of scorn on the application of the rules. I should like to touch on some of them. First of all let me make clear that, in practice, in the great majority of cases (although I have certain figures, I am not quite satisfied enough of their accuracy) of people who are not qualified, who have a foreign-born parent, whether their foreign parent be American, German or of any other country, the rules are waived. Indeed, it might be argued that we have bent too far in making the rules sound as restrictive as they are. I think that the noble Viscount himself would, in theory, be disqualified under the rules, but I can assure him that he, like Sir Winston Churchill, would undoubtedly have received the necessary waiver.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I think, my Lords, that the only thing that would have to happen is that, if I wanted to go into the Foreign Service, I should have to become British. I am a Canadian citizen.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I did not realise that the noble Viscount is Canadian. I suspect he may have more than one passport. This is a fascinating topic which we might pursue on another occasion. There are a considerable number of interesting points on this matter. I had thought that the noble Viscount, like Sir Winston Churchill, had an American parent, but, as I say, I do not doubt that the Minister of the day would have exercised his waiver, as he would do in the majority of cases.

This brings me to the particular problem of those people who live in this country, many of whom are fully naturalised subjects but whose ancestry is derived from behind the Iron Curtain. Let me make clear that the rules are frequently waived in relation to those who are children of Polish or Czech parents. But we are particularly concerned about the situation of the Poles—and anyone who mentions the position of the Poles can be certain, particularly in your Lordships' House, of a strong and indeed emotional reaction, such is the feeling that we have for those very gallant people who were such faithful and determined allies under the most extreme conditions, and unto death, during the last war.

Let me say straight way that the answer to the point about the waiving of the rules in practice is that they are waived. And I put it again to the noble Lord that the children of Polish parents are able to enter the Services, and indeed to become officers. I have attempted to obtain some figures. Since these rules were published in September, 1965, and bearing in mind that before then these rules were not officially existing, 82 people of Polish connection have been taken into the Services. I have not been able to establish too exactly for all three Services how many of them were commissioned, but there were 13 commissioned into the Royal Navy and 9 were commissioned into the Royal Air Force.

At this point, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that I appreciate his giving the details of particular cases, but I must say that in two cases he was slightly misleading in the sense that the parents had never in fact taken British nationality. I would not argue that this is a decisive factor, but none the less I am bound to say this. I am not aware of the particular circumstances of the individual who applied for one of the squadrons, and I think it is probably better that I do not comment on this.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, the applicant was of British nationality and had lived all his life in this country. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made a great point of the nationality of the parents. He made a point of the security risk involved in receiving into the Services a British citizen of foreign parentage. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is not trying to draw a red herring across it, but he must not, I think, pin anything on us that we did not say.

LORD SHACKLETON

The only reason I am pinning this on is because it is a point that was specifically made, not once but twice, by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. But it is not a point of major significance.

Of course some people are turned down because they do not meet the grade. These are very high entry standards, particularly for officer entrants. In the light of the figures I have given, I would suggest that there is no discrimination except where the judgment is that there could be a risk. We can argue about this as much as we like, but I can only say that this is held by advisers as a matter that should be properly taken into account; and it would be wrong to bring into the Services and into the Forces those for whom we thought it was likely we could provide only a restricted career. On the other hand, those who are accepted can be confident that they will be able to enjoy a full and useful career unless circumstances of a kind that may arise, as they can as much in relation to a British citizen, do arise and cast doubt on their reliability. Of course, it is possible that in certain circumstances a wholly British citizen may be regarded as not sufficiently reliable to be admitted to more highly classified information.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could just explain that a little more.

LORD SHACKLETON

No, I do not think I can.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am not sure that he may not be able to. Is he saying that once the nationality rules have been applied and account has been taken of the applicant's relationship or non-relationship to people in other countries abroad, he is thereafter on the same basis as any other person, any other officer or other rank in the Forces, when it comes to the second security screening; that there is no further complication at that stage because he is alien?

LORD SHACKLETON

I am talking about those who are already admitted into the sensitive field. That is, unless in fact their actions—which may in themselves, of course, not be acts of disloyalty—are of a kind to give rise to doubts as to their reliability. I hope I have answered the noble Viscount on that.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Yes.

LORD SHACKLETON

I do not wish to go too deeply into this, but, of course, it is easier to grant a waiver where the applicant has no connection with countries behind the Iron Curtain. I should like to make it clear that the Services do not willingly turn away otherwise suitable recruits, but the difficulties I mentioned do force them reluctantly to reject some of them. I may say that I have considered cases where it has been only with the greatest reluctance that I have agreed that in fact the restriction should stand.

At the same time, let me make it clear that in a large number of cases the closest examination has been given. I have myself exercised the waiver where I have reckoned that it was proper to do so. The Services already have a number of people who originated from behind the Iron Curtain. As your Lordships know, in the Royal Navy there is a Rear-Admiral of Polish birth; but one Rear-Admiral in itself proves nothing very much beyond the fact that he was himself an exceptional man. There is nothing in the rules—and I must emphasise this—that in any way detracts in the slightest from our admiration and gratitude for the gallant service to the Armed Forces of this country during the war by so many people of alien birth, and particularly by those of Polish origin.

I may not have been able to answer all the points; indeed, I am sure that I have not given full satisfaction to the noble Lord. I will only say in conclusion that whereas I can make no promise, as the situation has evolved over the last few years I would say that if anything there is a slightly more relaxed position in regard to these matters. But in the face of a threat which still continues we cannot afford to take risks with national security. I hope that noble Lords interested in this subject will accept that confronted with this dilemma we must have regard to the national security.

9.16 p.m.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his full reply and to mention just two points. I tried to make it clear in my opening speech that I did not dispute for one moment that those who are going to have access to classified information need careful vetting. I tried to make the point—and I still believe it—that there is no evidence whatsoever that persons who have alien parents are more susceptible to security risks than those who have not.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It is just conceivable that the application of this rule may have minimised the risk. To that extent it is very difficult for the noble Lord to conclude that it has not been of significance in regard to the exposure to espionage hazard of a kind to which he has referred. But I leave him with this thought only as a point of fair argument.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

I was merely saying that I did not think there was any evidence of that.

I do not think that the raising of this matter has done any harm. If the debate to-night leads to some serious thinking about this matter, and perhaps even to more careful application of the rules. I shall be extremely satisfied. With your Lordships' permission, I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes past nine o'clock.