§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI want to raise a subject which I have brought forward on a number of occasions at Question Time and on which—I will not say I got no satisfaction, but as to which I have got the minimum of information from the Government. The subject is an Order recently issued, calling up for re-examination men who have been rejected, men who have been considered unfit for general service. I may read the introductory material paragraph of the Order:
It has been decided to call up for medical re-examination attested men who have previously been called up and rejected by medical boards, as well as those group and class men who have been placed in medical groups and categories not being taken for service and who have accordingly been sent back to their homes, and continue in the Army Reserve.I said I had been able to get only the minimum of information. I regret very much indeed that the Minister who is responsible for this Order is not here tonight. I have no personal complaint against my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster). He is one of the most helpful Ministers who sit on that bench. This is not in his specific Department. He is concerned with the Financial Department of the War Office, and I think he has given universal satisfaction in this House, and has never been at a loss to give us such information as can be given when it has been asked for. But this thing is not in his Department, and my complaint is that when the subject has been raised in the House, even although the Secretary for War has been sitting beside the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, the question has been handed over to the hon. Gentleman to deal with, and on several occasions, in reply to questions he has said, "I regret I cannot answer the question; I know nothing about it; it is not in my Department. I am overworked with questions which are brought before me relating to my Department, and I have not been able to give the study to this subject which is necessary to answer the question." When, therefore, I say I regret it is he who is present to-night to deal with this matter, it must not be taken that I am in any way making a personal reflection on him.431 The subject I want to raise is the manner in which the War Office is dealing with attested men who have been rejected for general service, and with those men who are unfit for general service, and who have been placed in various medical categories of unfitness. There are two classes. First the rejected attested men, and second those men placed in medical categories not being called up for military service, and I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman certain facts with regard to each of these. First of all with regard to the attested men who have been before the medical board and have been rejected: there was a clear promise given to these men under the Derby scheme that if they came forward and volunteered for service they would be placed in a position not less favourable than those who refused to come forward voluntarily, but waited for the compulsion of the Military Service Act. Under the Military Service Act, the man who refused to come forward but waited for compulsion is placed in the more favourable position. If he has been rejected after the 14th August, 1915, and if notice has not been sent to him calling him up for re-examination before the 1st September this year, he is exempted altogether from the operation of the Military Service Act, and he cannot be compelled to come up again without fresh legislation. But the attested man has no advantage such as that. Even if he has been rejected he may be called up at any time again and again for re-examination. There is no finality—no certainty as to his position. Whereas the man who waited for compulsion is free to go on with his ordinary occupation, free to make contracts, free to incur obligations, the attested man who came forward voluntarily has this hanging over him all the time. He cannot enter into contracts, he cannot undertake the ordinary obligations of business life on account of this uncertainty which is hanging over him. I submit to the hon. Gentleman on the first point that this is unfair to the attested man, that it is a breach of the promise which was given to him, and that it makes him feel that he has fallen into a trap, and that he is being treated as one who has been trapped.
My second point as to attested men is that the Order provides that no man previously rejected who has been re-examined by the medical board since 25th May, the 432 date when the Military Service Act came into operation, is to be called upon for the present to be re-examined under this instruction. "For the present!" What do those words mean? These are not men who have been rejected once. They are men who have been rejected twice. They are men who offered themselves first of all and were rejected. They have been called up for re-examination and have been rejected by the medical board. They thought they were free with regard to the future. They thought it was final, but there is no finality. The words are "for the present." What do those words mean? Is there to be no finality at all with regard to these men? Has the War Office not got medical boards which are competent to say whether a man is permanently unsuitable for military service or not? If he is permanently unsuitable, then give him a certificate saying so and let him conduct his business in the ordinary way. If he is not permanently unsuitable, if he is only temporarily unfit, give him a certificate saying that he is temporarily unfit, and may be called up at a later period for re-examination. Give him some knowledge as to what his position is. Do not keep him in this position of uncertainty. It is injurious to the nation. It is injurious to business. It is not helping to win the War. I raised this particular point at Question Time, and the hon. Gentleman gave me the extraordinary answer—it is avowedly not his own answer; it is an answer put into his hands by officials outside his Department—"that it is not considered that these men are in greater suspense than any other members of the public." They are not in any greater suspense than any other members of the public ! Really, is my hon. Friend serious? How is he treating the men who refused to come forward and who are exempted under the Military Service Act. Are they not in greater suspense than them? How about the members of the public who are over forty-one? Are they not in greater suspense than them? I have no desire to prevent the War Office from getting all the men that are necessary for their purpose. If the unfit men need to be called up, then let them be called up, but let the men over forty-one be called up too, if you are calling up unfit men and men who have been medically rejected. Under this Order they are certainly and undoubtedly put in a position of much greater suspense and uncertainty as to their immediate future than 433 is any other member of the public in regard to whom legislation is required before he can be brought into military service. That is all I have to say with regard to the first class of attested men.
I want to say something now about the men who are not necessarily attested, but who have not been passed for general service, who have been put into medical categories, in groups such as C 2 and C 3, and who are not at present being called up for general service. I have two points to raise about them. In the first place, what is their present position? Is there to be no certainty as to which group they are in? Are they to be called up continually and over and over again for medical re-examination? Surely the War Office can give a man, as a result of a searching medical examination, some certainty as to the group he is in and what kind of military work he is fit for if he is to be called up in the future. Why should there be this constant re-examination and shifting about of a man from one group to another until he does not know where he is and until he begins to doubt the justice and bond fides of his medical examination and of his grouping? The second point I have to raise in regard to the men who are in medical groups and categories arises out of the period of notice which is to be given to them if their grouping is changed and if, as a result of that change, they are to be called up. Let me read the words of the Order which has been issued:
They will he given fourteen days' notice unless they are in possession of a certificate which gives them a promise of two months' notice.It is the fact that a large number of these men were not given a written promise of two months' notice, but were given a verbal promise of two months' notice. This certificate, which was printed upon the card given to them, was only introduced in the month of May. That certificate contains a definite written promise of two months' notice if it is determined to call them up for service. That was abandoned, I believe, in the month of June, so that this written certificate only existed for the month of May. But long before that period—in February, March and April—men coming up for examination, if they were not fit for general service and if they were put in Categories C 2 or C 3 and were sent back to their homes, were told, as they left the recruiting room, that they would not be called upon unless they were given two months' clear notice. I put a supplementary question to the 434 hon. Gentleman, who gave me a definite answer, but a most unsatisfactory one. He said:The official recognition of unauthorised oral promises is, I am afraid, impracticable.The question I want to put to the hon. Genteman is: Am I to understand that these verbal promises which were universally given during the months of February, March, and April were unauthorised? He has distinctly stated that they were unauthorised, but arising out of that I would beg to show him that they were authorised. This matter was raised as long ago as March—before the written promise was brought in. It was raised in the House in the form of a question by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), and it was answered, not by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in whose Department it is not, but by the Secretary of State for War himself, in whose Department it is. Here is his answer:Mr. Lloyd George: Men only fit for clerical work who are not immediately required for such work in the Army are returned to their civil occupations, and are not called up without at least two months' notice."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1916, col. 1180. Vol. LXXX.]
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)May I remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend at that time was not Secretary of State for War?
§ Mr. FORSTERHe was Minister of Munitions.
Mr. SCOTTThat is quite right, but it makes my case all the stronger, because this authorisation was made by someone in a more important capacity than the Secretary of State for War, and by someone in a more important capacity than even the Minister of Munitions. He was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. The question was addressed to the Prime Minister, and it was answered by the then Minister of Munitions, so that it had the highest authority that could be given to it. Therefore this verbal promise of the two months' notice was not an unauthorised promise given by irresponsible persons. It was an authorised promise given as a matter of policy by the recruiting authorities and sanctioned and adopted by the Prime Minister in this House. I think I have shown that this is a matter which requires further explana- 435 tion and that the House is not being treated with respect when these matters are raised in the House at Question Time and we are told that we cannot have an answer from the Minister who is responsible, but can only have some formal answer from a Minister who is not responsible and who assures us that he has not had time to fully acquaint himself with the matter at issue.
There is one last aspect of the whole matter, that is, the short paragraph which comes at the end of the Order. It is stated that:
Men who on re-examination are found not to be fit for service in a category from which men are being taken should be made use of for purposes of substitution as far as possible.Is this an attempt to introduce industrial conscription? I submit that it is a clear and undoubted attempt to introduce industrial conscription. If I am told that industrial conscription is necessary to win this War, I am not going to boggle at it. I want to win this War, whatever be the cost. If industrial conscription is to be introduced, let us have it introduced fairly and squarely, so that we can understand it. Do not let us introduce it merely for some unfortunate men who have fallen into a trap. Let us be just about it, and introduce it all round. What is the effect of the industrial conscription that is introduced by this method? It is industrial conscription only for a certain class of people, for those who are so unfortunate as to be medically unfit. No industrial conscription for the men who are exempted from the Military Service Act; no industrial conscription for the men over forty-one, but only industrial conscription for those unfortunate persons who happen to be physically unfit and medically rejected !The last thing I would say is that the whole manner in which this subject has been treated raises the question of the necessity of some form of devolution in the work of the War Office. A certain amount of devolution has been carried out already. The Ministry of Munitions has had devolved upon it a large share of the War Office work, and we are now in the Pensions Bill devolving another large amount of War Office work upon a certain organisation. The work of supplying men to the Army is as much civilian work as is the supply of munitions. It is the concern of the War Office to train, equip, and use these men they have passed into the Army, but when you are passing the whole 436 available manhood of the country, that ought to be the work of a civilian Department which has the duty thrown upon it of supplying all the men that are necessary and who can be spared for the purpose. In no other way can the work be well done. The work is not being well done at the present time. It is being done in a most incompetent manner. Men are hot being called up who ought to be called up and men are being called up who ought not to be called up. Owing to the system, the responsible Ministers in this House are not able to exercise any control. Avowedly they are overworked. They have not sufficient time to devote to the essential work of the fighting services, let alone the recruiting service. I submit that that is the desirable and necessary remedy which ought to be faced by the Government.
§ Mr. ANDERSONThis is really a matter of very great importance, and the whole question ought to be cleared up by the War Office for the purpose of setting it upon a more satisfactory basis than it is at the present time. Among the men who have been medically examined and declared unfit there is the utmost confusion and uncertainty as- to their actual position. It would almost appear as if new Orders and Regulations are issued every second week by the War Office which seem to upset decisions given previously and pledges that were made on the floor of this House. Undoubtedly in a number of districts the medical examination has been very often largely a farce, and men have been passed who could make it quite clear that they were unfit as far as military service is concerned. Yet these men are told that they may be called up at any moment for re-examination, and they are quite unable to settle down to their ordinary work, because they dc not in the least know what the future-position is going to be. It is perfectly true that in organising millions of men and in organising a great machine such as the Army now is there must be many cases of individual hardship. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply that those cases of individual hardship ought to be reduced to the minimum, and that no unnecessary suffering or uncertainty ought to be imposed. The fact is certainly that large numbers of new men have been and are being taken into the Army. They are not being taken in the main for military purposes. To a 437 large extent to-day the policy undoubtedly is that they are being taken in to be used afterwards for industrial purposes by means of the substitution scheme. In my opinion, that is a violation of the spirit of the Military Service Act and a violation of the pledges which were then given, and if it is necessary to have these men brought into the Army, not for military purposes but to be used for industrial purposes in order to release other men, that matter ought to coma squarely before the House and be debated before it is put into effect. The men are called up although they are unfit, and certainly unfit for any form of general service. They are taken into the Army in that condition, and then they are to be given the alternative that if they like, in order to keep clear of the Army, they can go to a certain employer and remain with him for the period of the War.
In regard to that, I ask, first of all, what are the exact terms of service that a man so returned will have to accept? Will he have to stay with one employer, because obviously unless he-does that your scheme of substitution falls through? It is very important that we should have the clearest understanding in regard to a matter of that kind. Then I would ask this question. I spoke on this very matter some weeks ago when the hon. Gentleman was not present. If you are going to take unfit men by the thousand into the Army, many of these men are going to break down. What financial responsibility is the War Office going to accept towards them? Are you going to say, "You were really not fit when we took you in; we have done nothing to cause your unfitness, and therefore you are not in any way entitled to any form of pension"? That is being done by the War Office to-day, and it is absolutely wrong. If you accept a man into the Army you ought to accept financial responsibility for him at the same time. I should like to have a very clear understanding on that point. Many of these men will be broken, and to no purpose, because you know perfectly well when you take them in that they are never going to make efficient soldiers. They are not going to be a source of strength to the Army if you keep them there, but they will be a source of weakness; and many officers will tell you they would be very glad to get rid of many of these unfit and semi-fit men. Therefore, we ought to get a much clearer idea of what the policy of the War Office is. The War Office ought to make clear its 438 policy with regard to unfit men, and that policy ought to stand good until this House decides otherwise. As it is, the matter drifts on from week to week, new regulations come out, and those men do not in the least know what their position is or what their future is. That is entirely unsatisfactory, and a better state of things: ought to be set up. I have very often brought individual cases of hardship to the notice of the hon. Gentleman, and in each case I have found him most sympathetic towards these cases and most anxious to see that the right thing should be done. It is not the hon. Gentleman who is at fault, but there must be a fault in the big machine behind him, and it is to that that we refer and in respect of that that we want more enlightenment than we now have.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSI do not like rising to trouble the hon. Gentleman. I quite endorse all that my hon. Friend (Mr. Scott) said with regard to the stress of work which is put on him and the courteous way in which he treats all Members of the House, but I feel that the subject which is now raised is one of the gravest importance. I desire to see the War carried to a successful issue and am only anxious to do any little that I can on purpose to obtain that object. Therefore any criticism that I may make with regard to the present condition of things and with regard to men who have been medically rejected is made from two points of view. I believe that this continual uncertainty is having a very serious effect on the condition of the industries of the country. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as myself what is the condition of labour in our two Constituencies and how serious it is in many of the industries, and anything which tends more to upset it is a great danger to the country. At present we have handed round a number of notices to attested men. In answer to a question I asked today he said he could give me no more information, and in reply to a supplementary question he said he did not think attested men were in a worse position than unattested men. I want as clear an answer as he can give me to this. I think the attested men are in a much more unfortunate position, and when we are dealing with attested men we are dealing with those who did not wait for an Act of Parliament to be passed to compel them to go into the Army, but came forward, in 439 that great spirit of voluntaryism of which we are all so proud, to place themselves at the service of the State and to place their lives in the hands of the State, and if they were found medically unfit the fault is not theirs. The spirit which actuated them was just as good as that of their brothers who were more physically fit and who passed into the Army. Now we find that these men who, prior to 25th May, 1916, had been medically rejected and were told under the Orders that unless they had notice by 1st September they would not be expected to undergo a medical inspection, are now being served with notices. I have the best evidence of the fact. I have taken the trouble to get it from the chairman of one of the tribunals in my Constituency, and I have mentioned it to other Members and have found it applies to other districts. What is the effect of that? These men have been medically rejected and have been in a state of anxiety with regard to their position up to 1st September. They received no notice to go up for further medical examination. Now they think the time has gone by and they have settled down to their various industries. Employers in agricultural areas have looked upon them at this very critical time for agriculture as at their disposal, and so in other industries. Now they are having notice served on them that they must go up and be medically reexamined. This is a most unfortunate state of things. It is a state of uncertainty. I am prepared that we should get all the men possible—all the men who are required—but you want it done on the most businesslike principles you can have. While we are draining our industries to the great extent we are we want these men who are left behind and their employers to know that they can go on with their work ready for the spring, the summer, and the autumn of next year. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us some assurance if he possibly can. It is difficult for him to give it. It is not a financial question with the War Office, but I am sure he will make a representation that something like a full, calculated system on businesslike lines shall be adopted with regard to these men.
§ Mr. FORSTERI am once more in a rather difficult position in dealing with this particular question, as the Secretary of State had intended to deal with it, but found, at a comparatively late hour this 440 afternoon, that it would be impossible for him to be present, and therefore he asked me to represent the War Office in this matter. The hon. Member (Mr. Scott) used very kind language with reference to myself, for which I am grateful. He alluded to what is perfectly true, that on two occasions, and I think only two, I have asked for the indulgence of my hon. Friend and the House generally in dealing with this question of the treatment of attested men and men taken under the Military Service Act, because the matter is so exceedingly difficult that without real and complete knowledge one might do a very considerable amount of mischief by an incautious answer or one founded on what was necessarily incomplete knowledge. My hon. Friend fires off his supplementary questions into my back almost with the rapidity of a machine-gun. He has raised points of great importance, and I quite realise the importance which, not only he, but the House generally and the men affected attach to the questions he has brought to my attention. If I had been able to equip myself more thoroughly I could deal in a more satisfactory manner with the point to which he has referred than I am able to do. He has made reference to an answer given to a question by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) while he was still Minister of Munitions with which I confess at once I was entirely unacquainted. No doubt the answer which my right hon. Friend gave strengthens the case which has been put forward by my hon. Friend. The only thing I can say is that I shall bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend to-morrow, and I have no doubt he will take such steps as are necessary. My hon. Friend has referred to the promise which was given that attested men should not be placed in a worse position than those who were made subject to the Military Service Act, and he has brought to my notice that in some respects. I do not think the direct action of the War Office places them in a worse position but the indirect effects of the action which the War Office has taken. I am bound to say that my hon. Friend has made out a good case so far as the indirect effect of what has been done is concerned. I think that my right hon. Friend, who gave the pledge that these men should not be placed in any worse position, undoubtedly had in mind, and I think the War Office also had in mind, the direct effect of the Orders issued and the 441 interpretation of the provisions of the Act. However, I will bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the indirect effect to which my hon. Friend has referred. With regard to those who are placed in medical groups and categories, what are known as C 2 and C 3, my hon. Friend said that these men are placed in a position of great uncertainty because we cannot give them a final and definite undertaking either that they will be taken or that they will not be taken. I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is impossible for us to say—admitting that we must have a certain proportion of those who are in these categories—how many we shall want and how many we shall not want.
Mr. SCOTTThat was not the point I raised to-day. My point is that there is uncertainty among these men as to which category they are in, not as to whether the category will be called up. There is uncertainty as to which category they are in owing to the constant examinations and re-examinations.
§ Mr. FORSTERThat is a different point from the one I thought my hon. Friend was making. I do not see how that is to be avoided in regard to the point of health. Naturally one's own condition of health varies from time to time. Occasionally I am fit to encounter my hon. Friend almost on equal terms, and on other occasions I am not fit.
§ Mr. FORSTERThat is how the position stands in the matter of health.
§ Mr. FORSTERI am afraid that medical opinion differs with different individuals. We cannot—I wish we could—find a standard which we could get all doctors to apply to the same individual.
§ Mr. FORSTEROf course, there are categories which are so obviously unfit that no medical man in the world would pass them.
§ Mr. FORSTERWhat, blind men?
§ Mr. FORSTERNot blind men, surely! I know nothing of that. I should like to know whether my hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor) could give a case where a blind man has been passed for service. Attention has been called to the question of certificates. I have already dealt with that. My hon. Friend (Mr. M. Scott) raised a further point which was also touched by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) as to the terms of service in regard to substitution, and the hint of industrial compulsion contained in the Order, the terms of which were read out. In regard to the terms of service, as I have explained to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division, substitution does not make it a condition that the man released shall cling to the service of one particular individual employer. It means, where he is released, to take part in some-specific branch of industry, he must confine his activities to that specific branch of industry. For instance, if he is released to take part in agricultural work he is not free to leave agricultural work and go into another industry.
§ Mr. ANDERSONIf the War Office says to an employer, "You have got ten fit men; we are prepared to give you ten men as substitutes in their place," and the employer gives up the ten fit men on the distinct understanding that he gets ten substitutes, does the hon. Member tell me that those ten substitutes could leave that employer next week?
§ Mr. FORSTERThey will have the same freedom as the ten original men.
§ Mr. ANDERSONThen you have broken your word to the employer.
§ Mr. FORSTERI think not. What we have said to the employer is, "We will give you ten substitutes." We do not say "We will give you John Smith, or William Brown." What we say is, "We will give you ten individuals in place of the ten men who are released." The employer releases ten men, and ten substitutes are found. If, say, two of the original substitutes leave the service of the farmer, it will be the duty of the War Office to find two more substitutes. I hope I have made that clear to my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. ANDERSONindicated assent.
§ Mr. FORSTERA further point which my hon. Friend raised was the financial position of men who are being taken into the Army at the present time. He said a great many unfit men are being taken into the Army, and he asked whether we are going to see that if they are discharged upon medical grounds they are properly dealt with from the financial point of view. My hon. Friend is asking me to give a definite undertaking on a very difficult question. From the point of view of all of us, I think our present arrangements are not entirely satisfactory. I will take note of the view that my hon. Friend has pressed upon me very strongly to-night, but I cannot give him at the present moment a direct undertaking that we are going to take financial responsibility for all the men we take into the Army. I cannot go further than that, although I sympathise strongly with a great deal of the point of view that he has expressed. I should like to make a further observation with reference to the position of uncertainty in which so many people find themselves at the present time. I am afraid we all find ourselves in a position of uncertainty. I wish we did not. It is the uncertainty that is inseparable from a state of war, and I am quite sure that even those who are suffering most severely from it will realise that the uncertainty which is inflicted upon them is not inflicted intentionally by a harsh bureaucracy, but is part of the general condition of affairs from which we all suffer.
Mr. E. HARVEYWill the hon. Gentleman deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) in regard to the notice forms served on rejected men after the date provided in the Act? That applies to quite a number of other cases.
§ Mr. FORSTERI am sorry that I did not mention it. I am afraid that I have not got information upon that point, but I have taken note of what my hon. Friend said, and I will have the matter looked into.
Mr. SCOTTI am not entitled to speak again, but I should like to ask a question, and in so doing to thank the hon. Member for his reply, which I realise is as far as he could go. Will he represent to the Secretary of State for War, for his consideration, the desirability of issuing some general statement with regard to the position of men who have been rejected, and put into categories as unfit? There is the very greatest uncertainty, and such general statement might have a reassuring effect.
§ Mr. FORSTERYes, certainly I will do that. It is a very reasonable request to make, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will consider it very carefully.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Eight o'clock.