HC Deb 07 November 1916 vol 87 cc15-6

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the statement made by Major Passingham, at the Montgomery shire Appeal Tribunal, on Friday, 20th October, that in respect of a man returned to industry or agriculture under the substitution scheme he continued to be an Army man, and would be called back to the Army if he misbehaved; whether the judge as to the man's behaviour would be the employer or the military authorities; whether an expression of dissatisfaction with his conditions would be construed as misbehaviour; and whether in this connection he will bear in mind the pledge given by the Prime Minister that the Military Service Bill should not be used, and should not be capable of being used, for any form of industrial compulsion?


Major Passing-ham reports that he did not in any way suggest industrial compulsion. He was asked what would happen if a man in Class W, Army Reserve, placed as a substitute, misbehaved himself, and he stated that the matter would be impartially inquired into. If it was shown that the man had failed to comply with the conditions under which he had been placed in Section W, he would revert to the Army; but if the employer was found to be in the wrong, he would lose the services of the man, who would be placed with another employer.


Has any action been taken against the newspapers, which reported that Major Passingham used the words exactly as I have stated them?