§ 35. Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the instruction issued by the Army Council, under the date of 12th October, for the calling up of men who voluntarily attested and who have since attained the age of forty-one years places such men at a serious disadvantage as compared with unattested men; and whether, 929 in view of the authoritative statements which were made that men who voluntarily attested were not to be put to a disadvantage he will make arrangements for the instruction in question to be withdrawn?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe Army Council intends so to administer the calling up of the men of forty-one that the attested men will not be at a disadvantage in relation to the unattested men of the same ages. Instructions to give effect to this intention will be issued immediately.
§ Mr. TERRELLAm I to understand that the Army Order is to be treated as withdrawn?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo, no! The hon. Gentleman is not to understand anything except what I actually told him. There will be no disadvantage as between them and the others.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had two definite and explicit promises from the War Office; one on 17th May and the other on 7th March, saying that men who reached the age of forty-one, whether attested or unattested, would not be called up, but would be passed into the Reserve. Does that stand?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, it does.
§ Mr. THOMASIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of his statement, now, this week, they are calling men up who are past forty-one? Are we to understand that his answer is to be taken as cancelling these instructions?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo; it simply means that there will be equalisation of conditions in both cases.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday and the day before men of forty-one have been called up? Does that Order stand?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo. I will give the exact Order to the House in the course of a day or two, but you have undoubtedly to redress the position. Cancellation of the Order would mean the loss of an enormous number of men whom we cannot afford to lose. We propose, therefore, to go up to the legal limit so far as the unattested men are concerned, and to equalise the conditions so far as the unattested men are concerned.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODNotwithstanding the answer you have just given to the Member for Blackburn?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThere is no inconsistency.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo, I have here simply stated that it was proposed to equalise. The only pledge that has ever been given is that attested men would be in the same position as unattested men.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am not aware of any other pledge. My attention has not been drawn to any other. It is proposed to carry out the pledge by means of equalisation.
§ Mr. SNOWDENAs this is a matter of such urgent importance, might I ask for a clear answer to this question: If a man who has turned forty-one receives a notice calling him up has he to respond to it or not, seeing that the two replies I got from the War Office to which I have referred stated explicitly that he would not be called up?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not know the answers to which my hon. Friend refers.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe only pledge that I am aware of is that attested or unattested men should be on exactly the same footing.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat we propose to carry out. If we went beyond that it would be a very serious blow to the Army.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWe do not propose to raise the age limit, but to go right up to the legal limit imposed by the Military Service Act. If the House insists upon anything else they will be deliberately depriving the British Army, at a time when it stands in serious need of men, of a very large force. That is a very serious responsibility for the House to take.
§ Mr. TERRELLIn view of the unsatisfactory replies of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss the matter.