- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing Section (relating to soldiers who are discharged or transferred to the Reserve), no soldier of the Regular forces shall be entitled to be discharged if, at the completion of the term of his original enlistment, or of the period of his re-engagement, he is suffering from any venereal disease: and the period of his Army service may be compulsorily prolonged until he is cured of that disease.
- (2) In this Section the expression "venereal disease" means, syphilis, gonorrhoea, or soft chancre in any infectious or contagious stage.—[Mr. King.]
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This is a Clause which I have brought to the notice of the Committee on previous occasions. It is an attempt, and I venture to think a very honest and sensible attempt, to deal with the great evil of venereal disease. We are told that after the War there will be a very great increase or recrudescence of this very dangerous disease. It is, of course, understood that the Government are taking steps to meet the evil. My proposal is that the War Office should have the power to say that any soldier suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form may be kept in the Army until he is cured. My Clause does not say that he shall be kept in the Army; it simply says that the War Office shall have power to refuse his discharge so long as he has the disease in that form. This, I admit, goes a little further than the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who, recognising the great danger that there is in soldiers having venereal disease coming out of the Army and spreading it, have in their recommendations Nos. 21 and 22 dealt with this subject. They evidently are afraid to recommend that the discharge of such soldiers should in all cases be refused, but they suggest it. In suggesting that the War Office should take this power I do not want them to exercise it in all cases, but I do think they might discriminate and use such a power in certain cases if men were of such a character, for instance, that they could not be trusted and had been subject to frequent and repeated attacks of this disease—there are such men in the Army—or if there were cases where men who were going to get their discharge failed to give an undertaking for the future or there were any complaints which were unsatisfactory in regard to their treatment or conduct or capacity for earning their livelihood or otherwise. In such cases I think such a power as that I suggest might very well be acted upon at any rate, for a time. This is a large subject and a late hour, and I do not intend to detain the Committee any further upon it, but I hope, at any rate, that I shall 382 have a sympathetic reply from my hon. Friend, and even if he cannot concede the Clause to-day I hope he will consider it further. I am afraid we shall have another Army Bill before the War is over, and some such course of action as I suggest would, I think, be well worthy of consideration by the authorities.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe House realises that my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset takes a real interest in this subject, and I feel sure that his views in regard to this matter will have careful consideration. I have only to point out to him that there are one or two considerations which make it impossible for the Government at the present time to accept the proposed new Clause. In the first place, we could not keep in the Army many men who are afflicted with this disease, because it takes practically two years in these cases for the disease to be cured, and we have not the hospital accommodation to keep these men two years. Moreover, it would not do for it to be said or thought that the Army had become a segregation camp for this particular type of disease. The only other point I should like to lay before my hon. Friend is that I do not think he would like us to say that we should not discharge a soldier when his time for discharge arrives. I think that would be an interference with the liberty of the subject with which my hon. Friend would not in ordinary circumstances agree. In view of these circumstances, which, I feel sure, will appeal to him, I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Clause.
§ Mr. KINGBefore I announce my decision whether I press it or not, let me point out that the Clause in the Army Act—Clause 90—which refers to the discharge of a man docs not say that a man on being entitled to his discharge shall be discharged at once; it does not give a man any right to go out of the Army and to go free. It says he shall be discharged "with all convenient spend." It is quite clear that a man, when he becomes entitled to his discharge, is allowed to go-out under certain conditions which are therein stated. I propose to add one-condition which shall not be applicable in all cases, but shall be permissive. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman cannot go further, but I shall return to this matter on Tuesday, I cannot see that there 383 is any great injustice or difficulty in what I have proposed. However, under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.