35. Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, in spite of his repeated assurances, the last being in a letter to the hon. Member for Haggerston, dated 22nd May, officers are still violating the Army Council Instruction of November, 1916, by refusing service leave and late passes to uninoculated soldiers; and whether, in view of the nature of this practice, he will re-issue that Instruction in such terms that future misunderstanding can only be wilful or, by cashiering officers guilty of refusing to obey it, ensure soldiers and their families against being penalised any longer for exercising their legal rights. The word "widespread" has been struck out of this question, which originally was "widespread nature of this practice."
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe do not encourage adjectives.
§ Mr. SPEAKERAdjectives do not add force; they only take up a certain amount of paper and ink.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am not at present satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for republishing the Instructions which have been issued on the subject. The rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have not received dozens of complaints, but I have received complaints from the hon. Member, who is the only Member of the House of Commons from whom I have received complaints.
36. Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that uninoculated non-commissioned officers and men of the West Lanca shire Royal Engineers obtained at the cavalry barracks, Colchester, and gene rally those of the 7th Division, are being refused the privileges to which they are entitled, in defiance of the Army Council Instruction of November, 1916, and whether he will instruct the officers commanding to obey that Instruction and warn them that punishment for refusing to obey will no longer be confined to privates and non-commissioned officers?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.