§ 14. Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War whether the new scheme for dealing with men in the Army who refuse to obey military orders on the ground of conscientious objection provides that every case will come under review where the objector has been summarily dealt with by the commanding officer and given punishment not exceeding twenty-eight days' detention; where a punishment of detention has been given by a court-martial; where punishment of imprisonment has been given and the man has been transferred to a civil prison; whether in all these cases, or in which, the War Office sends on the case to the Central Tribunal for consideration, with the view of offering work under the Home Office scheme; and what is proposed to be done with the men who refuse to accept work under the Home Office scheme, will they be kept in prison until the termination of their sentences and then sent back to the Army, and if they again refuse to obey military orders will they again have to pass through the same proceedings of court-martial, civil prison, reference to Central Tribunal, reference to the Home Office Committee, refusal, and continued imprisonment?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)All such cases, with the exception of those dealt with summarily by a commanding officer, 1833 are being remitted to the Central Tribunal for consideration. It is not intended to provide for cases which have been disposed of summarily by a commanding officer, because it would entail a considerable amount of work which is quite unnecessary in view of the fact that under the provisions of Section 46 (8) of the Army Act no soldier can receive an award of detention except by his own consent. Men who refuse to accept work under the Home Office scheme will be kept in prison until the termination of their sentences, and will then be returned to their unit. If they again refuse to obey military orders they will be dealt with in accordance with the Army Act, and they will have no further opportunity of presenting their case to the Central Tribunal.
§ Mr. SNOWDENWhat is the meaning of the phrase that "they will be dealt with under the Army Act?"
§ Mr. FORSTERThey will have to serve without being allowed to appeal to the Central Tribunal.
§ Mr. FORSTERI expect not.
Mr. E. HARVEYWill steps be taken to see that such further penalties as are inflicted shall be inflicted in the civil prison?
§ Mr. FORSTERNo, Sir; they have now got their chance; if they do not take it, it is their own fault.
38. Mr. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the treatment of Mr. Charles Slifield, of Sheepwash, North Devon, by the Army Medical Board at Exeter, to which he had been directed to go by his Appeal Tribunal; whether the Board first inquired whether he was attested, and then if he was a conscientious objector; whether one of the Board then remarked to the other member that if he was a conscientious objector they would pass him for general service; whether the Board did not feel his pulse or test his eyesight; whether they proceeded to pass him for general service, although he suffered from chronic throat affection; and whether he will take any further action in the matter?
§ Mr. FORSTERInquiries have been instituted in regard to this case, and the results when received shall be at once communicated to my hon. Friend.
§ 75. Mr. W. THORNEasked whether the offer by the Road Board to the Sussex County Council Roads and Bridges Committee, to supply conscientious objectors for road-making, is part of the scheme of the Home Office Committee; and is it intended to employ these people on such work at rates of pay less than the trade union standard in the industries affected?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel)Arrangements are being made by the Home Office Committee to send a party of 200 men for employment under the Road Board in Sussex, and I understand from the Road Board that the Sussex County Council will be required to pay to the Road Board the actual value of the work performed by these men at local piecework rates.
§ 86. Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what means of redress a person has under the Military Service Act where an Appeal Tribunal deliberately refuses to carry out the provisions of the Act, as in the case of Arthur Plater, who appealed on the 5th instant before the Surrey and Croydon Appeal Tribunal on conscientious grounds and was told publicly by the chairman, Sir Lewis Dibdin, that he admitted that appellant had a genuine conscientious objection to both combatant and non-combatant service and that he was sure he was an honest man, the military representative concurring, but notwithstanding the appellant was given non-combatant service, although the chairman said he could give him absolute exemption but he did not choose to do so?
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)I am making inquiries into the statements made in the hon. Member's question.