§ 21. Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any arrangement has been made by which married men with large families serving at the front will, as far as possible, be replaced by men with less or no dependants; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of adopting such an arrangement?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir, no such arrangement is in operation. It would not be practicable at present to adopt it, but the matter is one which will not be overlooked.
§ 22. Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed recently by the East Riding of Yorkshire Recruiting Committee, stating that serious injustice would be perpetrated upon the married men of military age who had attested under the group system unless the Government saw fit to bring in compulsory military service for those married men who had failed to attest; and whether he has received other resolutions of a similar nature?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir, my attention has not been called to this resolution, but I have received a resolution of a similar nature.
§ Major NEWMANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this resolution actually expressed the general opinion of the country?
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not think that I can be taken to believe that one resolution expresses accurately the composite opinion of the country.
§ 46. Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he has studied the measures adopted by our Allies to mitigate the dislocation of business, the breaking-up of homes, and domestic hardship which may be entailed by married men when called up for service; and, if so, whether he will lay the result of such investigations upon the Table of the House?
§ The MINISTER OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George, for the Prime Minister)I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given yesterday by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Local Government Board, to which I cannot at present add anything.
§ 47. Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister if, when he gave his pledge to the married men who attested under Lord Derby's scheme that they should not be called up till the unmarried men had been called up, by compulsion if necessary, he made any reservation regarding the possible exemption of large numbers of able-bodied unmarried men of military age; and whether the numerous exemptions of such men now being granted by the tribunals constitute a violation of his pledge to the married attested men?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe Derby scheme from the outset contemplated that men who were in various ways indispens able to the country should be exempted from military service. This is made clear in the letter of 19th November from Lord Derby to the Prime Minister and in the Prime Minister's reply of that date.
The tribunals are doing their work very well, and the number of exemptions is not due to any laxity on their part, but to the large number of men claiming to be starred, badged, or in reserved occupations. This has caused the Government much anxiety, and steps are being taken 1039 not only to revise all lists of starred and badged men, but materially to reduce the number of reserved occupations.
§ Mr. McNEILLDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the exemptions were to reach an unnecessarily large figure it would constitute a violation of the pledge to the married men? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI understand that it will have that effect.