§ 50. Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the Regulation issued by the Local Government Board denying to men voluntarily attested under the Derby scheme the right to apply for exemption on the grounds of health or conscientious objection; whether he is aware that in very many cases no medical examination whatever was made of the Derby recruits; and whether, in view of the declaration, of the Government on this subject, the Regulation will be withdrawn?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am inquiring into the matter.
§ 73. Captain AMERYasked if a single man of military age who offered himself for service on 15th August, 1915, and was rejected on military grounds is permanently excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Act; and whether that exception holds good even if the rejection was on grounds of temporary ill-health or was secured by fraud?
§ Mr. TENNANTI cannot anticipate the interpretation which might be placed upon the term "rejected" by a Court of Law if a disputed case should arise, but the obvious meaning of the Schedule 417 seems to be that if a man has been rejected on bonâ-fide grounds he will be permanently excepted, even if the rejection may have been on the ground of ill-health which has since passed away. Evidence of rejection may, of course, be required.
§ Sir J. SIMONCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Act of Parliament gives the War Office any authority to decide whether a man is in validly rejected or not, or whether, on the other hand, that question has not to be decided in case of doubt by a magistrate in a Civil Court?
§ Mr. TENNANTIn the event of dispute, no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend is correct; but, in the first instance, I should think it was necessary for the War Office to ask whether it was or was not valid.
§ Sir J. SIMONDoes the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the War Office have any authority to decide it?
§ Mr. TENNANTI should say that the War Office are perfectly entitled to express their opinion upon that subject.
§ Sir J. SIMONHave they the authority to decide it?
§ 74. Captain AMERYasked if a single man of military age who offered himself for service on 13th August, 1915, and was rejected for service on medical grounds is liable to re-examination and, if passed fit, may be compelled to serve under the Military Service Act?
§ Mr. TENNANTHe is liable for service, but provided the cause of rejection still holds good he would probably not be taken.
§ Captain AMERYDo I understand that if he was rejected he is liable for re-examination?
§ Mr. TENNANTYes, I think that is so.
§ Captain AMERYWill the right hon. Gentleman state what are the grounds on which a man who was rejected before the 14th August can be compelled to be re-examined, whereas if he was rejected after the 14th August, even if he was only temporarily ill, he can be entirely exempt?
§ Mr. TENNANTBecause of the Act of Parliament.
§ Captain AMERYI want to ask whether there are any reasons?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to ask the sense of the House which passed the Act of Parliament.
§ 82. Sir J. SIMONasked whether unmarried men who have offered themselves for enlistment in the Territorial Force and have been rejected since 14th August last are regarded as falling within the provisions of the Military Service Act. 1916; and, if so, whether, inasmuch as that Act excepts from its provisions all who have offered themselves for enlistment and have been rejected since that date, there is any justification for disregarding the Act in this particular?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.
§ Sir J. SIMONAm I to understand that it is not necessary to hold either of these forms or any other form for the purpose of making good exceptions from the Act of Parliament if the man has been rejected since 14th August?
§ Mr. TENNANTIt is rather difficult to answer these questions off hand. An Act of Parliament, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is not very easy to interpret on the spur of the moment. These forms are really the forms which say a man has been rejected medically for a proper reason.
§ Mr. PRINGLECan the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds the War Office make the issue of an armlet conditional on re-examination?
§ Mr. TENNANTBecause we are perfectly entitled to do that.
§ 83. Sir J. SIMONasked whether the military authorities are claiming to regard persons who have offered themselves for enlistment and been rejected since 14th August last as within the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, and as liable to be compelled to serve unless they can produce a specified form of certificate of rejection; and whether there is any warrant in the Act of Parliament for the War Office of its own motion adding this condition to the conditions which the Act of Parliament lays down?
§ Mr. TENNANTI have made inquiries and I am informed that the claim mentioned is not being made by the military authorities. The cases in which specified 419 forms, namely, B.2505A and B.2512A must be produced are those in which the issue of an armlet is desired.
§ 85. Sir J. SIMONasked whether it is with the cognisance and approval of the War Office or of Lord Derby that single men who have offered themselves for enlistment and have been rejected since 14th August last have been peremptorily summoned by recruiting authorities to present themselves for further medical examination and have been thereby induced to believe that unless they obeyed the summons they would be liable to be compelled to serve under the Military Service Act; and what steps the War Office propose to take in order to relieve those who have been thus misled from the false position into which they have been put by the action of the authorities?
§ Mr. TENNANTIf a notice to join the Colours has been inadvertently sent to any man who is exempted or excepted from service under the Act he should notify the recruiting authorities in order that it may be cancelled. Where men are known to be exempted or excepted the notice to join the Colours is not sent.
§ 86. Sir J. SIMONasked under what authority the Army Order was issued stating that it was necessary for all men who had already been rejected under the Derby scheme on medical grounds to be examined afresh unless they could produce one or other of two Army forms there specified; and whether those responsible for issuing this Army Order claim to have any authority to vary the terms of the Act of Parliament which excepts all persons who have offered themselves under the Derby scheme and have been rejected, whether they hold any certificate of rejection or not?
§ Mr. TENNANTWhat my right hon. Friend has in mind must, I think, be a Press communiqué issued in December last. This dealt with the issue of armlets, and stated that they could not be issued unless one or other of the two Army forms showing date and cause of rejection could be produced, or unless, in the alternative, the man was willing to submit to re-examination. Unless an armlet is desired, the question of re-examination does not arise.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEWill the right hon. Gentleman state whether when these men 420 are asked to come forward for re-examination they are also asked to reattest before again being medically examined?
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not think that is, so. These are men who have already attested; I understand, therefore, there can be no object in having them reattested. All that is demanded is that before an armlet is issued the man should be medically examined to see whether he is fit for service abroad, or for service in this country, or for merely clerical duties, or something of that kind.
§ 87. Sir J. SIMONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that numbers of single men who had already offered themselves for enlistment had been rejected under the Derby scheme, and who were thus excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916, were misled by his answer given to the hon. Member for Derby on the 27th January, that such men must undergo further medical examination, into believing that they were liable to be compelled under the Military Service Act, and were, in consequence of the misapprehension thus created, coerced or induced to offer themselves a second time, when, although unfit for military duty, they were accepted, with the intimation that they would be employed in clerical or other sedentary work; and whether it is proposed to release from their obligation those persons who have been thus misled by a declaration made in the name of a Government Department?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo cases have been brought to my notice in which it has been alleged that a man rejected under the Derby scheme has been either coerced or induced to offer himself a second time, owing to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Derby on 27th January, but if this could be clearly shown in any case I undertake that the circumstances shall be fully gone into.
§ Sir J. SIMONI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I beg to give notice that in the Debate on the Vote of Credit I shall call attention to this matter.