§ 39. Mr. SNOWDENasked by what authority the recruiting officers are calling upon men for medical examination who have been granted certificates of exemption from military service on condition that they accept work of national importance under the Pelham Committee, and who are actually engaged upon such work; and if it is intended to call for a review of their certificates with the object of getting these men for the Army?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONDefinite instructions have been issued that men who have applied to the tribunal on the grounds of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service and have been granted exemption conditional upon their undertaking work of national importance under the Committee on Work of National Importance are not to be called up for medical reexamination unless in exceptional circumstances so long as they continue to comply with the conditions subject to which their certificates were granted.
§ Mr. SNOWDENAs such men are being called up when there are not the exceptional circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, what steps will he take to deal with the military who have failed to observe their instructions?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIf my hon. Friend will give me any case in which that has been done I will certainly have it looked into.
§ 40. Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if an attested man who receives a pink form before 1st 1063 September, and on medical re-examination was again rejected as totally unfit, is exempt from being called up for further re-examination; if so, why David Jones, of Salterno Road, Lower Parkstone, who is employed in a munitions factory, was called from his work on Friday, 2nd March, to appear before a medical board on the works, and who, notwithstanding his protests, was re-examined and passed C 2; and what action he proposes to take in this case?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI would remind my hon. Friend that the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916, do not apply to attested men whose liability for military service accrues from their attestation and not from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916. The written notice required to be sent by Section 3 (2) of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2) only applied to men who had offered themselves for enlistment and had been rejected since the 14th August, 1915, and did not apply to attested men, and it is not understood why the man referred to in my hon. Friend's question should have been sent the written notice. Inquiries are being made into the facts of this case, and I will communicate the result, to my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. SNOWDENAs Police Courts all over the country have refused to accept the condition just laid down as to the liability of attested men to further examination, will the War Office, in view of these decisions, go on insisting that these men shall be medically examined?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot accept my hon. Friend's statement as to all the Police Courts of the country?
§ Mr. SNOWDENNot all, but a great many.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy hon. Friend knows that that is not the case.