§ 4. Mr. WALTER REAasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the case of George Frederick Mitchell, heard before the Scarborough Borough Tribunal, as disclosing three contradictory decisions of military medical boards; and whether he proposes to take any steps to insure a more thorough official medical examination with a view to assisting local tribunals in the decision of cases involving medical questions?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONAs some difference of opinion existed as to G. F. Mitchell's proper medical classification, and on the recommendation of the Scarborough Tribunal, this man was brought before a special recruiting medical board in London, the members of which include, amongst others, two eminent specialists who classified him as Category A, and their decision must be considered final. All possible steps have been taken to assist local tribunals in the direction indicated in the hon. Member's question.
§ Sir W. COLLINSWould the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what was done with regard to the undertaking given when the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Bill was before this House as to improving the composition of the medical boards and utilising specialists in certain cases?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI do not think that arises out of my answer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing our level best to make the medical boards as competent as possible.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have stated that two eminent specialists were present.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot say.
§ Mr. HOGGEWill my hon. Friend publish the instructions to the medical boards so that we can all see them?
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it not common knowledge that in many cases these boards do not actually examine the men whom they are understood to examine, and that accounts for these strange decisions?
§ 10. Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any officers of military age, other than those who are disabled by wounds or illness, are acting as military representatives before the tribunals, and if their duties might better and more suitably be discharged by men beyond military age?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given on 19th February to my hon. Friend the Member for the Barnstaple Division and on 19th April to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Melton Division.
§ Sir H. CRAIKAs I have studied the previous answers, I would ask the hon. Gentleman if they were not confined to saying that the medical state of the persons so employed would be reported to the War Office; and, seeing that it is notorious that a great many of them are men of military age, of perfect health and with no military experience except going about in uniform, will he not think it time to comb them out and so avoid questions of a more personal character being put?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy hon. Friend is quite right in saying that one of the answers stated explicitly that instructions had been issued by us to find out the military category of all officers employed by us as military representatives. The general policy of the War Office is to employ men who are over military age or men who are physically unfit, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind perhaps he will specitfy it.
§ Sir H. CRAIKWould it not be better, without compelling me to make any personal reference in a question in this House, to go into this matter and see if some considerable number of these men do not answer to the description I have given of them, namely, of their being in perfect health, having no military experience except being in military uniform, and being of military age?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI will see to it.
§ Mr. PR1NGLESince the previous questions were put have any inquiries been made or any action taken by the War Office in the matter?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have already stated that we have issued instructions in the matter.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThen what has been done?