Mr. Wallace and Captain Holroyd (Hansard, 20 July 1988)

§ Mr. Freeman

Mr. Wallace joined Government service as an assistant information officer at Headquarters Northern Ireland in 1968 and became a senior information officer in 1974. His job as a senior information officer in Northern Ireland was to brief the press on military operations and terrorist activities in the Province. As is customary, it would have been necessary on occasions to give such briefings on an unattributable basis. But of course it was not part of his job to hand over classified documents to the media. Shortly after he left Northern Ireland for a new post in Great Britain it was discovered that a classified document had been delivered by Mr. Wallace to the London home of a journalist onThe Times.

Mr. Wallace was suspended for handing over the document, and it was decided that he should be dismissed from the Civil Service. Clearly, it is impossible to employ in a position of trust as an information officer, with constant access to the media, someone who deliberately leaks classified information to the press.

693W

Mr. Wallace was disciplined for releasing a classified document without authority. His case was subsequently considered by the Civil Service Appeal Board in 1975. The Civil Service Appeal Board accepted the Ministry of Defence argument that Mr. Wallace was bound by the security regulations and that he had no authority to release classified information.

The board agreed that Mr. Wallace could not remain in the Civil Service but found that, in view of his previous good service, he should be allowed to resign rather than be dismissed.

For the next few years Mr. Wallace appears to have been out of contact with the Department. In the light of his subsequent allegations this long period of apparent silence might seem rather surprising. In 1981 he was convicted of manslaughter. This case was entirely unrelated to his service in Northern Ireland. In 1982, Mr. Wallace's attention focused on the investigation by Sir George Terry, the chief constable of the Sussex police, into alleged homosexual offences against those in care in homes and hostels for young children and persons in Northern Ireland, including the Kincora boys' home. He alleged that both the Army and the intelligence services knew of the homosexual activities at Kincora long before the matter became public and that rather than reporting these criminal activities they sought to use the information for their own ends. The police were of course anxious that Mr. Wallace should give them any information in his possession which could help them in their inquiries.

The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland gave an assurance that Mr. Wallace would not be prosecuted for any breach of the Official Secrets Act in respect of any information which he communicated concerning these matters. Additionally at Mr. Wallace's specific request, the director of Army security separately authorised Mr. Wallace to disclose to the RUC any information in his possession directly relevant to the investigation, which he gained during the course of his employment with the Ministry of Defence.

Following an approach to the Prime Minister it appeared that Mr. Wallace was concerned that information which he might give to the investigators might be used as evidence for charges against him. The Prime Minister drew attention to the assurances already given that he would not be prosecuted on any charge on the basis of evidence he might provide in answering questions put to him in the course of the investigations. Mr. Wallace was also concerned about the provision of legal advice and assistance, and the Lord Chancellor provided advice as to how he should apply for legal aid. In spite of every effort being made to remove obstacles from his path, Mr. Wallace apparently felt unable to help the RUC. In parallel with all this, Mr. Wallace petitioned the Home Secretary about the circumstances of his conviction for manslaughter in 1981, claiming that he had been wrongly convicted and claiming that this was part of a cover-up to prevent him revealing what he knew about Kincora. It was explained to him that there was no known link between his conviction for manslaughter and either his resignation from the Ministry of Defence, or allegations concerning the Kincora boys' home in Northern Ireland, these matters having already been the subject of inquiries by the appropriate authorities, in the course of which Mr. Wallace was given every opportunity to make his views known. In any case, it is not clear how his conviction could have prevented him from revealing what he knew.

694W

Mr. Wallace's representations about his convictions were fully and extensively investigated. Nothing emerged which cast serious doubts upon his conviction or offered any grounds for the Home Secretary to intervene.

In 1985, the question arose of Mr. Wallace presenting evidence to the committee of inquiry into children's homes and hostels (chaired by his honour Mr. W. H. Hughes), which had been appointed by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland in the wake of Sir George Terry's investigations to focus on the administration of children's homes where homosexual abuse had occurred and how those responsible for residential child care had discharged their responsibilities. Again, the director of Army security wrote to Mr. Wallace, confirming that he could disclose to members of the committee any information in his possession which was directly relevant to the investigation including, where necessary, information gained in the course of his employment with the Ministry of Defence and which might be security classified.

It was also made clear to Mr. Wallace that the Ministry of Defence would not wish to prevent him from presenting any relevant evidence he may have to the committee or, if he believed he had evidence of unlawful activity, to the police. He had been given all the assurance he could possibly need to enable him to make available to the RUC any relevant information without fear that it would be used subsequently against him. It was further explained to him that although he had been unwilling to release a file which he had forwarded to the Prime Minister in November 1984, but to which he apparently attached some significance, the Government had, at the committee's request, given the committee acccess to all the papers from the file of which it retained copies. Mr. Wallace was also told that a specific document to which he attached particular significance was among those which had been passed to the inquiry by the RUC. Mr. Wallace was further advised that any further relevant material he had would be a matter for the inquiry, or if it involved unlawful activity, the police.

Mr. Wallace also received an assurance that there was no geographical limitation on the undertaking given him that any relevant evidence that he gave to the Kincora inquiry would not subsequently be used against him. Thus the way seemed clear for Mr. Wallace to give his evidence—if he had any—to that inquiry.

The result of the inquiry's approaches to him is recorded in paragraphs 4.70 to 4.87 of the Kincora report which was published on 4 February 1986. It concluded that Mr. Wallace had declined to give straight answers to questions or to authenticate alleged documents. And that in connection with the RUC's investigation whose scope was wider than the inquiry, he had been asked whether he would be interviewed about all the allegations in the documents made available to the inquiry but had refused. Despite repeated approaches, he refused to substantiate his allegations and the inquiry therefore concluded that his evidence had no value.

The other individual who has made allegations is a retired officer, Captain Holroyd, who was employed in Northern Ireland on confidential and exacting duties at a time when he was also under the strains of severe personal bereavements. At this time he appeared to be suffering from stress and his commanding officer considered he should seek medical help. The initial report from the commanding officer referred to a possible mental problem.

695W

Since the situation in the Province at the time precluded the admission of a military officer to a civilian psychiatric hospital for reasons of personal safety, he was returned to England and referred to the Royal Victoria hospital, Netley. While in hospital, Captain Holroyd wrote letters resigning from his post in Northern Ireland and resigning from the Army. However, he also decided to appeal to the Army board of the Defence Council against his referral to Netley on the grounds that this would damage his career as he felt he would forever carry a stigma as a psychiatric patient. The Army hoard confirmed that no stigma was attached to his removal from his appointment and agreed that all references to a mental problem be removed from his personal records. However, Captain Holroyd was not satisfied and wanted the medical record amended also. The Army board felt unable to do this as it considered that it could not supress a doctor's expression of his professional opinion. Furthermore. such alterations could in future prove to be against the well-being of the patient. In addition, Captain Holroyd was assured that the fact that he had been referred to Netley would not affect his future career. Despite having this assurance and having had part of his appeal upheld, Captain Holroyd was not satisfied and he resigned from the Army in September 1976.

Six years later, Captain Holroyd wrote to the Army legal services department, making serious allegations about the circumstances which led to his resignation from the Army. He mentioned releasing information for the purpose of obtaining publicity for his grievances. The importance of acting responsibly in the matter was stressed to him, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of lives in Northern Ireland, in respect of classified or privileged information that he had obtained during the course of his duties.

The records relating to the circumstances of his resignation were re-examined and nothing was found to substantiate his allegations. It was considered there were no grounds for reopening his case. As to his allegations of criminal behaviour by the Army in Northern Ireland, which he had said he would divulge if it were necessary to clear his name of the stigma he considered was attached to him, the Ministry of Defence advised him that his proper course was to put all his allegations to the police. He put these before the Essex police and they were subsequently investigated by the RUC.

In 1984, while the RUC investigation was still continuing, Captain Holroyd managed to interest a journalist in his case, who ran a series of articles about alleged criminal activity in the Province by the security forces. In November 1984 the cases of Mr. Wallace and Captain Holroyd merged, when Captain Holroyd wrote to the Prime Minister. repeating his allegation of criminal activity and enclosing a file provided by Mr. Wallace. Captain Holroyd was reminded that all his allegations of criminal activites had been the subject of a very thorough investigation by the RUC. He was also assured that Mr. Wallace's case had also been the subject of the most rigorous investigations, following petitions to the Home Secretary about his trial and conviciton and the most thorough enquiries into the circumstances which led to Mr. Wallace's resignation from the Ministry of Defence and into the Kincora affair, and that in both cases Mr. 696W Wallace had been given every opportunity to make his views known. Mr. Wallace's file was returned to Captain Holroyd.

In December 1984 the Director of Public Prosecutions Northern Ireland concluded that the evidence concerning Captain Holroyd's allegations did not warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings against any person; nor did he request any further investigation to be undertaken.

The two strands of this story should be drawn together at this point, as nothing new of any consequence has arisen since the conclusion in 1984 of the RUC's investigations into Captain Holroyd's allegations, or the publication of the results of the Hughes inquiry in 1986. Neither has put any fresh evidence since then to the RUC or any other appropriate authority. However, both Mr. Wallace and Captain Holroyd have continued to pursue their grievances. Their allegations remain completely unsubstantiated.

The position rests as I described it in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 3 March 1987, at column 577. The various allegations made by Captain Holroyd and Mr. Colin Wallace over many years about the conduct of the security forces in Northern Ireland have been fully and carefully investigated since they brought them to the attention of the authorities some years after they left the province in 1975. No evidence has been discovered as a result of those investigations to substantiate any of their allegations.