8. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that Mr. G. Frost, of 46, Aden Grove, Stoke Newington, was rejected on re-examination by the Shoreditch Medical Board on 1st September, 1916, as unfit for any form of military service; whether he is aware that he was not given the discharge to which he was entitled under the Army Council instruction of 13th July, 1917, that in a letter, dated 17th April, 1917, the Under-Secretary for War informed the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow that the recruiting officer would issue Army Form B 2079 to Mr. Frost as soon as certain documents were received, and that no certificate of discharge has yet been issued to Mr. Frost, but that he has been summoned for re-examination on 26th May; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Frost is entitled not to be re-examined until six months after the date of his discharge, he will cancel the notice for re-examination and cause a discharge to be issued to him?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONFurther inquiries have been made into this case. Mr. Frost was medically rejected on the 1st September, 1916. The matter was gene into by the War Office on a letter from my hon. Friend in March last, and instructions were sent that a discharge certificate was to be issued to Mr. Frost on its being ascertained that he had been medically rejected. It appears, however, that in February Mr. Frost had changed his address, and that he took no steps in the matter until the 13th March, when he called at the recruiting office, Stoke Newington. He had not then notified his change of address to the national registration authorites, and he therefore did not come on to the military register at Stoke Newington. Mr. Frost was then advised to notify his change of address, in order that the discharge certificate could be issued to him on the necessary notification being sent from the Stoke Newington Recruiting Office. His papers were not received at Stoke Newington until after instructions had been issued in consequence of the passing of the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act cancelling the Instruction of the 13th July, 1916, under which Army Form B. 2079 was issued to attested men who were medically rejected. In any case, as my hon. Friend was informed on the 8th May, the date from which the period of six months should count is the date upon which the man appeared before, and was rejected by a medical board, and if Army Form B. 2079 had been issued to Mr. Frost, it should have shown that date. Mr. Frost's position, therefore, is not altered to his detriment. It being now more than six months since he was rejected, he has been rightly sent an order to come up for reexamination under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTIs the hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion he gave me a promise that a discharge would be issued to any man who was rejected while an order promising discharge or to the effect that he ought to be discharged was in force?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy hon. Friend's question has no bearing on the answer I gave. Mr. Frost was rejected on 1st September, 1916, and he has been rightly sent an order to present himself for re-examination.
Mr. SCOTTIf he was rejected on the 1st September, is it not the case that from 8 the 1st September up to last month he was entitled to receive his discharge, and that that certificate of discharge has been wrongfully withheld from him by the military authorities?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy hon. Friend did not listen to my answer. I explained to him that largely owing to Mr. Frost's change of address the certificate was not sent to him.
Mr. SCOTTIs it not a fact that Mr. Frost kept calling day by day at the recruiting office asking for his discharge?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot believe, if I may say so, that this is true. If Mr. Frost was really anxious to get his discharge he might very well have told the recruiting authorities that he had changed his address.