STATEMENT BY SIR A. GEDDES.

HC Deb 27 June 1918 vol 107 cc1252-311

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of National Service."—[NOTE: £100 has been voted on account.]

The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes)

In the course of certain Debates that took place in this House last week there were certain points raised in connection with the expenditure on the Minister of National Service to which it might do no harm for me to refer briefly. One of those points was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) in a speech in which he said, in effect, that the Ministry of National Service was an extravagant Department—I think that is a fair summary of what he said—and that its staff had been collected at a time when the experience of those at the head of the Department was limited, when you could not know what the requirements of the Department were. Before I pass on to other matters I should like to refer briefly to the reconstituted Ministry of National Service, as it now exists. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the Department as it now exists was not a new creation, but was formed out of the original National Service Department, plus the recruiting Department of the War Office, plus a new Department dealing with medical questions, and various other minor new Departments dealing with other questions which were entrusted to that Ministry. I should like to refer to the general policy which has been pursued, because the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury were not the only remarks on the subject of the Department. The staff which was taken over was a very big staff, and, from the time of the reconstitution of the Ministry there has been an unending effort to reduce the expenditure on these services. I believe that the results that have been attained are not altogether unsatisfactory. The actual expenditure upon the administration of the services which were taken over intact from other Departments is now being carried out with a saving in the neighbourhood of £100,000 a month on staff and administrative expenses alone. I believe that when the accounts are finally balanced at the end of the year it will be found that the staff has been enormously cut down and that on salaries alone there will be an average saving of £120,000 a month. That may be exceeded—I hope it will—but I should like to assure the Committee that throughout, since the reconstitution of the Ministry, the policy followed has been to secure the greatest possible economy in connection with administration and to keep the staff at the lowest possible figure.

4.0 P.M.

I now turn to subjects which, perhaps, may be of more general interest. The first subject with which I wish to deal is one which recently has excited a certain amount of attention and a good deal of criticism, namely, certain questions arising in connection with the medical examination of recruits. The first point with which I wish to trouble the Committee is the general question of grading, what grading is, and what it is supposed to be. There is no question really more difficult for any body of medical men to tackle than the question of dividing up any group of individuals brought before medical men or a medical board into subgroups which will be really closely bounded by clearly defined limits of physical fitness, because physical fitness, like all other biological attributes, is not evenly distributed, nor is it an absolute thing In any hundred men examined, representing a fair sample of the popula- tion, there will be found to be a certain number who are perfectly fit and a certain number who certainly to the professional medical eye, as well as to the ordinary lay eye, are unfit, and between these extremes there will extend an absolutely unbroken series of men who will extend from the more fit to the less fit, and there will be no naturally clearly defined line which will separate those who are more fit from those who are less fit. That is the basal difficulty with regard to grading. Even supposing that the men examined—the hundred men we are thinking of—are all of the same year of birth there will still be a distribution of these men between the fit and unfit, and there will be men occupying every possible intermediate position in regard to fitness. In the case of the younger men there will be an accumulation of men towards the fit end; in the case of the older men there will be necessarily an accumulation of men towards the unfit end. But for each age there will be an ideal standard of fitness. That ideal standard of fitness, although it may never be attained by any individual under examination, is quite a real thing for the men of that age.

In the past, under the War Office, when the War Office was responsible for the medical examination of men about to enter the Army, an effort was made to grade or categorise the men in accordance with their future usefulness in the Army. It was prophetic grading or categorisation. It had underlying it a real strategical conception that certain men who were fit for certain forms of military work. This aspect of grading is a very difficult one. Let us suppose we have a hundred men stretching in age from eighteen to fifty, everyone of whom is reasonably considered a very fit man for his age. Suppose all are available for service in the Army. The question which then arises will be this, How can these men best be made use of in the Army? I hope it is clear that that is a question which can only be decided by a man who has a complete knowledge of the various arms of the Service and of the duties required to be performed by each of those arms. It would not be a medical question at all. By hypothesis we suppose that these men are all as fit as they can be for their age and that they are available for military service. The utilisation of them comes to be con- sidered. That must be a question which must ultimately be decided by men of military experience and military knowledge and, indeed, by men who know the exact conditions obtaining in the field in this War. If the disposal of these men between the arms of the Service were entrusted to individuals who had not that knowledge there would undoubtedly be a waste of men—a number would be wrongly posted. Therefore it appears to me quite clear, and I hope the Committee will agree with me, that in deciding how a man is to be utilised in the Army there are two separate considerations.

The first is the purely medical consideration as to how fit the man is; the second consideration is how the man who possesses such fitness can best be employed in the Army, and that falls to be decided by men with experience of the conditions of this War. That is at the base of these difficulties—the difficulty of deciding how fit a man is and that of deciding how a man ought to be employed in the Army. These two difficulties constitute the basal problem in connection with grading or categorisation. The posting of them is a separate function. Under the old scheme, as I have said, when these men were dealt with by the War Office, an attempt was made to carry out these two operations at one time and to get the doctors working on the medical boards to decide, not only the medical problem as to how fit a man is, but also the further problem—what class of work the man is most suitable to do in the Army. That led, as was inevitable, to great waste, because civilian medical practitioners in large measure were being asked to decide something which required military experience, and, if I may venture to go back to the past, I would say that the great difficulty which led to the breakdown of the military recruiting boards was the imposition of this double function upon them. A great part of the criticism which was directed against these boards was due to the fact that they were attempting to perform two functions simultaneously, one of which they were qualified to perform and for the performance of the other of which they had not the necessary knowledge. At the time when it was decided that the medical examination of troops should be dealt with by the Civil Department this matter was very fully considered, not only by the Department itself, but by the Medical Advisory Board and by a large number of competent civil consultants. The question put to them was, What was it fair, right and proper to require medical men to do with regard to this grading and how far It was safe to expect civil medical men to be able to decide the military value of any individual brought before them? The answer they gave to that question wag that the furthest a medical board composed of civil medical practitioners should be expected to go was to say whether a man was fit for his age or not. That was the advice received from the Medical Advisory Board and from these consultants who were called in, and it lies behind the definitions which were given to the terms Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3 last autumn, when these terms were introduced. The reasons that the terms Category A and Category B1, B2, and B3, and so on were abandoned for recruiting medical boards was simply this, that we were changing at that time—last October—the ideal which was before the medical board, and we published the new definition at the same time as we published the new terms. It is expressed in that definition that these terms Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3, and so on have reference to the age of the men.

But that carried with it something much more important. It carried with it a completely new system of posting. In the old days the attempt was made by medical boards to place individuals who became available for Army service in one or other of seven departments or grades. After the change was made the medical boards, instead of placing men in one of seven grades, were in fact placing them in three grades for every year of the ages under consideration. There are now, from the ages of eighteen to fifty inclusive thirty-three year ages, so that at the present moment when a man comes forward for posting he may be placed in any one of ninety-nine separate departments—Grade 1, twenty-five, and Grade 1, thirty-three, being separate and distinct from Grade 1, forty, or Grade 1, fifty. Now the posting is done as a result of the consideration of the man's grade and his age, and the posting instructions take into consideration two factors. For instance, suppose that there are at the moment vacancies in the first-line Infantry, in the second-line Infantry, in the Artillery, and in other corps. To the first-line Infantry are allotted the men who fulfil two specified conditions—that they are in Grade 1 and within certain ages. To the second-line Infantry there will be allotted a certain number of Grade 1 men within certain specified higher ages and a certain number of Grade 2 men of the younger ages. To the Artillery will go certain Grade 1 and Grade 2 men within specified ages. It is obvious that if you are to maintain an Army in the field there must be at monthly intervals at least consideration of the type of men who are coming forward, and the supply of men of any class or grade or age available, so that the best men available may be posted to that arm which requires the best physique. It is upon that principle that the whole of the present organisation is based, and has been based since last October. Perhaps I may be permitted to put my point in a few words, that the men at the time of medical examination are divided up into ninety-nine grades—three for each of the thirty-three age years. So many of these grades are allotted to the Field Army, or to a portion of that Army. The Artillery is a wide service, for in it you have field batteries, garrison batteries, siege batteries, antiaircraft gun batteries, and so on. The type of physique wanted for an antiaircraft battery is quite different from the type wanted for a field battery. Therefore you have got to get men divided up into a large number of compartments, if you are to avoid waste. It is the failure, perhaps, on our part to explain fully what the system is which led to a great deal of the present criticism, and that is why I took the course of speaking first in this discussion, because I felt that there is a good deal of criticism which is the result of not understanding. I have had a good many talks with people since the last discussion and have found that they have not really understood at all what we were doing. The instructions, of course, have been available.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

They have been to the opposite effect.

Sir A. GEDDES

I do not think so. I quite see, and I admit fully that I should have seen it before, that one of the instructions, that which was quoted in the House last week, about the equivalence between the grades and the old categories, is most misleading, because there has been a change in the practical meaning of those terms, "Category A" and so on, in the Army. They have retained those terms exactly the same as the terms which were used before, and yet they apply a different meaning to them. They did not follow the National Service Ministry when we changed the term from category into grade, and that is part of the difficulty. It is quite clear that that is a very real difficulty, a difficulty which one had not realised, and I was extremely stupid not to have realised it. I should have seen the point. I apologise for my stupidity. It did not fall within the actual limits of my responsibility, and it is really a most misleading instruction as it stands to-day.

Mr. PRINGLE

Whom does it mislead?

An HON. MEMBER

The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.

Sir A. GEDDES

I think it did mislead the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and some remarks I made about his misunderstanding were remarks for which I have to apologise, because there was no doubt whatever that the instructions as they stood, if anyone was not actually working them, and did not know exactly the limits of the one departmental responsibility and the other, could very easily be misinterpreted.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Have any instructions been issued by the War Office to recruiting officers as to the corps or unit to which they should post men of a particular age grade?

Sir A. GEDDES

These are posting instructions which are issued monthly, and there is issued every month a very long instruction showing exactly what the age and physical qualifications are which are required for certain corps. The whole of the posting of the men is carried out under most careful supervision. When the men pass from the control of the Ministry of National Service over to the War Office, to the Air Ministry, or to the Navy, they go to reception stations, and at the reception station, in the case of the Army, there is what is called a posting board, which consists of a field officer who has experience of the present War, either directly by personal experience or has full information of how men of various ages are standing, a medical officer, and also a posting officer, who-has full information given to him every month as to the requirements of each of the arms of the Service, and the classes of men who should be posted to that arm. The actual instructions are issued monthly in the form of an Army Council Instruction to these officers. Obviously a great part of the information in that posting instruction must be secret and confidential, because it gives the numbers of men who are required for the various arms at the time. Suppose the Machine Gun Corps is being increased. There is, of course, an increased allotment to it, and if the instruction were published broadcast it would give away information which is obviously private. I have discussed a good many of these points with the War Office, and I know they hold this view, and I do not think it is possible that the monthly posting instruction should be made public. But there are considerable portions of it which are not confidential. The general principle upon which the posting is proceeding, for example, is not a confidential matter, and I am in consultation with the War Office, and will go further with that consultation, to see how much of that posting instruction can legitimately be embodied in our instructions which are public. Obviously you cannot give the numbers going to the Tank Corps, the Machine Gun Corps, or the Artillery, nor could you give the numbers going into the second-line Infantry or anything of that sort. But these posting instructions to a large extent are not really secret at all, and there is no reason that I can see why a portion of them should not be published. It is just to draw the line between the portion which can be and the portion which cannot be published with due regard to the national interest that is important, and that will require a certain amount of consideration. I hope I have made these points clear, that the question of a man's employment in the Army, the Air Force, or the Navy is determined by the consideration of two factors, the physical fitness of that man as discovered by the medical board—a purely medical consideration—and his age, which, after all, is a fact which is ascertainable, and that age is considered in relation to the experience of the campaign as to what degree of physical strength fit men of various ages are capable of attaining. I should like to impress on the Committee the fact that, under the present system, which has been worked since last October, there is very much greater delicacy in determining the fitness of these men than there was under the old system. There we had seven categories in which the men were supposed to be put by the medical boards, but into which, as a matter of fact, it was not possible for the medical boards in many cases to put them with any degree of certainty at all, because it was a mixed problem, not pure medical and not pure military, but a bit of it was medical and a bit of it was military. So now, I believe, under the present system, we are getting a much smaller percentage of waste of man-power. That is what we have been aiming to get, and what I think experience is showing that we are getting. I do not believe it is possible to go back to the old system of medical boards attempting to put men into these different categories. There is no possibility of drawing a definite and distinct boundary between one grade and another, or between one category and another. But the medical boards should concern themselves with the simple medical problem, is the man fit for his age or is he not? The medical men who are doing the medical examinations for the Ministry of National Service are not officials, and they are not whole-time men to any extent, though there are necessarily a few whole-time men. In the vast majority of cases they are civil practitioners who are giving a portion of one, two, three, or four days in the week to help in this work.

Mr. P. A. HARRIS

What is the tenure of their office? Are they subject to dismissal?

Sir A. GEDDES

The medical men are provided by the profession itself through its local official organisations, the local war executive committees. They prepare panels which include men in practice in the district who are willing or who have time to do a certain amount of work on the medical boards. The war executive committee may refuse to put a man's name on the panel. That, I believe, has happened, but no Government Department has anything to do with whether a man's name is on the panel or not, or is removed from the panel or not.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

Are they paid by time or by the case?

Sir A. GEDDES

They are paid by sessions of two and a half hours. These medical men are not in my sense servants of the Ministry of National Service. That is to say, we do not in fact appoint them. There is a formal approval, which has never been withheld from the names sent forward by these professional committees. Nor does any Government Department dismiss them. If any individual on one of the panels was guilty of misconduct, the tribunal which would decide that would, in the first instance, be the local war executive committee of the medical profession, and if they thought it a case of misconduct they would remove a man's name from the panel. So that there is, in fact, no Government control over the individuals who are working on these boards. That has been deliberately arrived at.

Sir F. LOWE

Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department issue any instructions to these medical boards?

Sir A. GEDDES

There is no control over the individuals who constitute the medical board. They have nothing to hope for from the Ministry of National Service beyond remuneration for a session or so many sessions per week. They have no promotions coming from the Ministry of National Service. That is a perfectly deliberate arrangement, because from the very earliest days of the history of the medical boards of the Ministry of National Service it was recognised that there would in all probability—and I believe it is absolutely borne out by experience—be a far higher standard of professional work if we left the profession itself to select the men who were to perform it. The general direction with regard to the working of these boards—that is to say, the professional, technical, medical direction, not the administrative direction about hours, pay, and so on—are issued from the Ministry of National Service after consultation with the heads of the profession. They are issued after full discussion by the medical officers in the Medical Advisory Board, which works with the Ministry of National Service, and there is consultation in all cases dealing with certain physical disabilities with recognised specialists in that particular branch of the profession. Instructions with regard to the effects of heart disorders upon grading are not issued by the Ministry of National Service out of its own head, but are issued to the boards after consultation with specialists upon heart disorders. Similarly in the cases of ears, throat, or whatever it may be. It is very important to remember that these instructions are discussed by the Ministry of National Service Advisory Medical Board with specialists in the subject and the instructions are agreed on with certain specialists before they are even brought to the Advisory Medical Board, which thereafter may or may not correct them. But I think in every case the Advisory Board has agreed with every technical professional instruction.

I am not trying to shake off any responsibility for the instructions. Once they are agreed, they are issued in the name of the Ministry of National Service, who must accept full responsibility for them, and do. I am just stating the procedure under which these instructions are prepared. Once these instructions are issued, the whole of the medical boards naturally are expected to conform to them. A great deal of recent criticism with regard to medical boards has been directed against the wrong place. The medical boards have been working very well in the overwhelming majority of cases. The criticism about the grading of the older men that has been hurled at these boards has been, in my opinion, directed to the wrong place. It ought to have been directed straight against the Minister.

An HON. MEMBER

So it is!

Sir A. GEDDES

That which is coming against the Minister is in the right direction. That which is going against the medical boards as to their grading according to the age and fitness of the men is not going to the right place. There has been a lot of criticism directed quite unfairly against the practitioners who constitute the boards, and in saying this I am speaking not only to this Committee, but I hope to those who are outside the walls of this House. These practitioners have been accused of grading men without proper examination, and so on. That may have happened in the case of one or two boards, but it certainly is not the case with regard to the vast majority. I have to remind the Committee that there are no fewer than 2,500 medical practitioners from civil practice, who are the very salt of the profession on the general practice side, working on these boards, and I would assure the Committee that it is not because it pays them. They do it out of a spirit of patriotism and because they realise that at this time it is a form of national work which they can do for the country. If there is to be any criticism of the work of the boards to-day I hope it will be directed not against the boards, but against me. The next point is that of the men of the new age period. It has been said that a very large number of men of the new age are being taken for the Army. It has also been said that a disproportionately large number of men of the new age period are being passed into the higher grades. I am in a very great difficulty at this stage, because I obviously cannot in the national interest give the figures in full. Therefore, if the Committee will forgive me—I know it is an undesirable practice—I would like to show them two charts. It was only because I realise that I cannot give the figures that I had this chart prepared, which will show pictorially exactly what is happening, and if members of the Committee are sufficiently interested to desire to have an opportunity of seeing them afterwards perhaps I can arrange to have them put in the Library. This (exhibiting chart) deals with men of the new age period. The long orange line, which extends nearly the length of the whole paper, represents the total number of men affected by the recent military age. The black line represents the 7 per cent. who the Prime Minister said, we propose to post this year. The blue line is the number of men who have been medically examined up to date, and the line which is very faint, and I am not sure whether hon. Members can see it, represents the number who have been posted up to date. That is the dreadful number of men posted out of the whole of this long column, which we have been told is ruining the business prospects of this country.

Sir C. HENRY

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what that small line represents as compared with the 7 per cent.?

Sir A. GEDDES

Taking the total of this line (pointing to the orange line), this email thin line represents one-third of 1 per cent. of the total column.

Mr. PRINGLE

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of those medically examined have been passed in Grades 1 and 21

Sir A. GEDDES

I have another picture to show to the Committee.

Sir C. HENRY

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 7 per cent. has been exceeded by those who have been medically examined up to date?

Sir A. GEDDES

11.2 per cent. have been medically examined, and less than one-third of 1 per cent. have been posted. The men who have been medically examined include those who have been absolutely rejected, those who have been placed in Grade 3, which, in accordance with the undertaking given to the House at the time of the passing of the Bill, we are not posting at present, and also the whole of the men who are before the tribunals. This next diagram (exhibiting diagram) deals with the grading.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of the men who have been medically examined have been already posted?

Sir A. GEDDES

One-third of 1 per cent. of the total number of men of the orange line. You can work it out. I am not good at mental arithmetic This chart, which shows the medical grading of the men, deals with the period since the men of the new age began to be medically examined. We are told that a very large number of the men of the new age—in fact, the statement has been quite cheerfully made that a higher percentage of the men of the new age are being passed for Grade 1 than of the old age. The first of these figures represents the results of the grading of the men of the old age. Red represents the men placed in Grade 1, green those placed in Grade 2, black those placed in Grade 3, and blue those place in Grade 4. Those at the top are men of the old age. Hon. Members will see that red is a very high column in every one of these diagrams.

Each of these blocks represents the-finished work of the medical boards in each of the regions, and London, which has been the most criticised, comes first. In the lower part you will see that there are two periods represented, and these deal with the men of the new age period. The colours have the same meaning. You will see there the result of the medical examination of the men of the new age period at the bottom of the second diagram, red meaning Grade 1, green Grade 2, black Grade 3. and blue Grade 4. These diagrams can be seen by everybody. I think that this first diagram will show that an enormous number of men of the new age has not, at all events on a percentage basis, yet been removed from civil life. I would like now to direct the Committee's attention to the safeguards which are provided for these men when they are medically examined. These safeguards are very numerous. Suppose an individual of the new age or the old age is medically examined. He first of all has the right of appeal, if he dislikes his grading, to a National Service medical board for re-examination, and many do appeal, and, as a result, many are downgraded and many others have been upgraded, and many have been left in the grade in which they were originally placed.

Sir F. LOWE

Is leave always given for that?

Sir A. GEDDES

It requires no leave from anybody. The only thing is they are fitted in as vacancies occur at the earliest possible moment for examination. If there is a rush of men being examined, as occasionally happens, and quite inevitably happens, a board may hurry through cases, and men are disappointed; and if you are giving a week's notice for medical examination, you have to arrange ten days ahead for the men who are to be medically examined, as it is impossible in cases like that, where a large number of men have to be re-examined, to ideal with them all at once.

Sir H. NIELD

What is the board which deals, in the first instance, with a man over forty-three, who is called up for medical examination? Is it a National Service board or some other board?

Sir A. GEDDES

It is a National Service board.

Sir H. NIELD

Is there a right of appeal from that board to the assessors or not?

Sir A. GEDDES

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to go on, perhaps we will get over the ground more quickly. I am speaking of a first examination by a National Service board, and of a second examination by a National Service board, and I am going to tell the Committee something which, perhaps, they do not know already, that we have got established, because of this re-examination being asked for, in many parts of the country—it is not possible in London at the moment because of the shortage of medical men, but it is done where there are enough medical men for the purpose—what is, in effect, an Appeal National Service board to which men may go as vacancies occur. This board does not do what I may call primary examination. It does the re-examination. Suppose the man is still dissatisfied, and by this time applies for a third examination, it is time, if there is no proper ground for a further examination, to refuse one; and if a man then goes on and applies, he may be refused the right of further examination, but he has then the right to go to the Appeal Tribunal, and that tribunal has the right of saying whether he shall or shall not be examined again. In many cases the Appeal Tribunal says, "Go back to the National Service medical board and be examined there," and arrangements are made accordingly. That has been a very common practice in many parts of the country, but if a man says, "These National Service medical boards do not satisfy me," the Appeal Tribunal can then send him to the assessors. So there is a further safeguard. The medical assessors are not under the control of the Minister of National Service at all. They are under the control of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and I would like to make it clear to the Committee that the Appeal Tribunals, the lay tribunals, are in fact a part of the ordinary routine machinery for securing medical examinations for the men examined. The Appeal Tribunals do not stand outside the medical examination machinery. They are an integral part of it in deciding what men shall go in for examination by the assessors.

That does not end the medical safeguard. If a man be posted he has still, immediately afterwards, to run the gauntlet of another medical examination of a more or less thorough kind, depending upon his age, and the standard which he is supposed to attain. If he is a young and obviously fit man, of course it is not necessary to have a very thorough examination. The man is simply marched past the doctor, who sees that he has got no infectious disease, or, if he has, that it is at once dealt with. That is done by the medical officer at the reception station for the service into which the man is going. If he is going into the Navy, the medical examination is by the naval authorities. If he is going into the Army, he is medically seen and examined by the Royal Army Medical Corps. I really, indeed, do not think that we can add very much to that series of safeguards. Remember that we have introduced especially, and of set purpose, with deliberate forethought, a stage at which the lay mind could be brought to bear upon it—that is, the lay mind of the Appeal Tribunal. That was done after great consideration and a great deal of thought, because we came to the conclu- sion that it would be very much better that a lay mind should be brought to bear upon this question of the medical boards—medical grading, and so forth.

Sir F. LOWE

Has the applicant the right to obtain professional assistance in applying to these various tribunals for medical re-examination?

Sir A. GEDDES

Certainly he has the right to have professional assistance before the lay tribunal.

Sir F. LOWE

The Appeal Tribunal?

Sir A. GEDDES

The Appeal Tribunal.

Sir F. LOWE

That has not been so in some cases.

Sir A. GEDDES

So we have a whole series of appeals and safeguards, and it is very difficult to see what further right of appeal could be introduced without hopelessly clogging the machinery. I think that we have gone as far as is reasonable. Now it is said that, in spite of all that, a certain number of men are whirled into the forces without proper medical examination, simply because they do not know. I do not know how any man could avoid at all events two of the stages. He has got to go before a National Service board—that is inevitable—and he has got to go before the posting board of the service to which he is being sent, if he is going into the Army at all. My experience of this shows me that there is always a small percentage of men who are put by the medical service board in a wrong grade. Sometimes they are graded too high and sometimes too low. That is inevitable. The percentage is very small, but the men who are passed through with too high a grading are "caught," if I may use that term, at the reception station, where the medical eye is again passed over them, and their physical condition is again assessed.

Colonel ASHLEY

Is the examination at the reception station made by one medical officer or by a medical board?

Sir A. GEDDES

There is a board, which is called the posting board. It consists of one field officer, a combatant officer—this is the case of the Army. I cannot tell the exact composition in the case of the Navy—a medical officer and a posting officer.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

Suppose the medical officer at the reception station classifies the man in a higher grade than he is classified at his medical examination—what is his position then?

Sir A. GEDDES

The medical officer at the reception station cannot classify him. He cannot put a man up. He can only send him back.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

He has done so. I know of cases.

Sir A. GEDDES

I would be very much obliged to my right hon. Friend if he will let me have any cases, because that is strictly against the instructions. There is a further safeguard inside the Service. That is that the men in the lower grades, if there is any question of their being graded high, are sent to what are called Recruit Distribution Battalions, where they are kept under observation for a period. I think that I am right in saying that the minimum is two months before regrading can be effected. That, I think, answers the point made by my right hon. Friend. There must be this lapse of two months while the men are under observation in this recruiting distributing battalion.

Mr. A. RICHARDSON

Is there any reason for not telling a man what his rights are if he is not satisfied? It is reasonable to give a man notice of what are his rights. It has never been done.

Sir A. GEDDES

If the Committee think that this should be done, I will consider it. Personally, I have never tried to conceal from anybody what his rights are.

Mr. RICHARDSON

It is not a question of concealing. It is a question of not telling.

Sir A. GEDDES

If it is considered necessary, I have no objection to putting notices up everywhere.

Sir H. NIELD

Did not the junior of the right hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, when his attention was called yesterday to the Chiswick Tribunal, and it was very specifically pointed out that men were misled through not knowing their rights, and many had allowed the time to elapse, and he was asked if, in those circumstances, he would print on the margin of the form requiring attendance for medical examination notice stating that if the man was dissatisfied he would have the right to appeal within five days, answer that he would make no exception, that he could print no such notice on the form, because if he did it in one case he would have to do it in all?

5.0 P.M.

Sir A. GEDDES

It must be obvious to all members of the Committee that it would be quite impossible to give the whole of the Regulations on every calling-up notice. A man would require a good thick book every time he was called up. We quite certainly agree to put up a notice—

Sir H. NIELD

Put it in the form.

The CHAIRMAN

Hon. Members had better reserve their remarks until after the Minister has concluded, when they will have an opportunity of stating their points.

Sir A. GEDDES

There is really no room in the form for the notice, and I am quite sure, if we put up one at the depot, that ought to satisfy any reasonable man who goes to be examined. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the way men have been medically examined and passed forward to the Army, and one knows that there is a good deal of unrest in the public mind, because they think that these men of the new age period are being sent forward to the Army to be mixed up with men of the younger class. I have already explained how we deal with men of the new age period. Each man of the new age period has a number in the National Service, and has opposite his number a large O. That large O was a distinguishing mark for the older men, and the use of that distinguishing mark has simply been carried on for use in the case of men of the new age period. The O is put opposite the number, indicating that the man is of the new age period. Not only is his category marked in this way, but the man's medical history sheet is also similarly marked, in order that there may be no mistake from carelessness or oversight at the reception depot. The posting officer looks at the sheet, and immediately sees the O opposite the man's number. Men in Grade 3 are distinguished in the same way with an O opposite their number, and that also appears in the medical sheet. I hope the Committee will recognise that a great deal of thought has been exercised in the case of these men. The thing has not been rushed; the men have not been simply whirled into the Service without consideration. These safeguards exist. Consultations take place between the National Service Department and the War Office, and these consultations have been practically continued since the beginning of this work.

There is a further point to which I wish to refer. I have received from Members of this House, and from the public, a very large number of letters recently, saying that the men of the new age period were promised—and that is quite true—that the young men would be strongly combed out before the older men were taken. The combing is going on, and is going on extremely well. The numbers which are coming out are satisfactory, and I think that we have really fully carried out that undertaking. It may interest the Committee to know that for every one man of the new-age period that has been taken, approximately just under thirty young men have been called upon. I think it will be seen that we are really carrying out that undertaking, and certainly we intend to do it to the best of our ability. But it must be obvious that we cannot suddenly whirl away all the young men from the work they are doing, without producing utter chaos. It is a slow business at best. We have speeded up enormously in the last few weeks, but the rate at which we are going forward is not really satisfactory to me. I want to see more of these young men combed out, and more of the older men, because the older men have got to train. You cannot have a gap after the young men have gone, so that the older men are being obtained in order that they may be in training so that no gap shall arise. It is impossible to take all young men for military service, and in some cases where we have taken them, I am afraid that the combing out has been overdone.

It really is important to realise what these men of the new age period are required for, and what is the policy which lies at the back of this new military age, the policy is really this: It is obvious, and it is common knowledge, that we have fewer young men than we had. We have recruited an enormous number, and the men of youth and fitness remaining in civil life are becoming more and more precious objects of national possession. In the Army there are largo numbers of services which require to be performed, but which do not necessarily call for the priceless qualifications of youth and fitness. Vacancies which are made in these services in the Army will have to be filled up, and men of the new age period will have to fill such gaps when the younger men are wanted. It must be obvious to the Committee that when you get nearer to the bottom, you are drawing men of greater value in civil life, and, recognising that, we are exercising all the care and humanity that we possibly can. Though it may be of little use, in days like these, to expect or look for humanity in the machinery of recruiting, nevertheless, every effort is made by us to retain just as much humanity as we possibly can in dealing with the cases of the men. I believe that many members of the Committee will realise that so far as humanly possible the Department of National Service has done its best to maintain a humane outlook. It is because we are getting so short of the younger men that men of the new age period are required for second-line Infantry and subsidiary services in the Army.

Sir C. HENRY

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by Grade 2?

Sir A. GEDDES

I am not referring to Grade 2, but to secondary and subsidiary services in the Army, not primarily in the first-line trenches, and not primarily even in assault work. Perhaps the idea may be best conveyed to the hon. Member's mind if I suggest a comparison between the second line of the British Army and the Territorial Infantry of the French Army, and a further comparison with the Land-stürm of the Germany Army. I think that comparison indicates most closely my meaning.

Colonel ASHLEY

Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, I wish to know whether he can guarantee that these men of the new age period in Grade 1, whom he says he wants for secondary services, when they get to the Army, will be put to secondary services. Can he guarantee that?

Sir A. GEDDES

I obviously cannot, as Minister of National Service, guarantee what will happen in circumstances of pressure and of fighting, but I can assure the Committee that, so far as it is humanly possible, the War Office has pledged itself to accept the undertaking as to putting these men of the new age period to secondary services in connection with the Army.

Sir C. HENRY

Will these Grade 1 men be in separate units or battalions?

Sir A. GEDDES

I think, when the Army is fighting, anything may happen, but until that occurs these men will not be mixed with young Grade 1 men. Grade 2 men may be, and I think will be in the same units, and I think that is necessary if we are to maintain continuity, but they will not be mixed up with young Grade 1 men, except in such times as exigencies compel men to fight, just as, at the end of March, the men who were passed for Labour battalions, took their place in the fighting line and fought extraordinarily well. But that was an emergency. Obviously, I cannot give any undertaking as to what might happen in a considerable emergency, but, so far as possible, the War Office has undertaken and agreed to see that these men are used for secondary services in the Army, and I have not heard of any failure on their part to carry out that pledge.

Before I sit down there is one thing I would like to say to the Committee, and through the Committee to the tribunal system outside this House. My right hon. Friend had given notice of it to-day, and it is on the subject of the tribunals and illegitimate pressure being brought to bear on them. The question was not put, but I understood it to refer to a sentence in a speech—a rather long speech—which I made in Manchester the other day, a sentence which I believe to have been misinterpreted. I may have spoken carelessly, but the point which was in my mind at that time, I may inform my right hon. Friend, when I was speaking of the retention in civil life of young men whose removal would not create a panic was not only—it was quite clear in the speech—of men protected by tribunals, but also of men protected by various administrative protective machines. I spoke with a considerable amount of heat on the subject of the fathers and other relatives of young men who have been trying to bring pressure upon the executive authorities to secure exemption for their sons. That has been interpreted as being a reflection upon the tribunals. It was not meant as a reflection upon the intergrity of the tribunals, but as a rebuke for a practice well known, I believe, to every member of every tribunal in the country, and also to a great many Members, if not every Member, of this House, where influence is attempted to be brought to bear of a social, business, or some other kind on those who have to decide the question of a man's exemption. That is what I was speaking of, that is what I was referring to. In the speech as reported—it is not a, verbatim report, of course—I think it quite likely that what I said lent itself quite naturally to the interpretation—I am not complaining of the report—it would appear that I was saying that individual members of tribunals were guilty of improper conduct. If what I said could be construed in that way, I apologise to members of the tribunals for having conveyed that.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

I only want to say a few words in answer to some of the statements, very satisfactory statements, which have proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes). He has to administer in times of great difficulty very unpopular Acts, and therefore he has all our sympathies. In two speeches to which we have listened, and of which he delivered himself last week, a speech in this House and a speech at Manchester, I do not think he detracted from his difficulties. But the speech this afternoon will, I am quite sure, in the opinion of most members of this Committee, have cleared up a great many misunderstandings on both sides, and will have considerably eased the running of the machine of which he is in charge. Let me say, first of all, in reference to what my right hon. Friend has just told the House is his explanation of he present attitude towards tribunals, that I accept that explanation, but I must tell my right hon. Friend that if he had not given that explanation he would have made the work of tribunals exceedingly difficult, would have aroused a storm about his ears which it would have been very difficult for him to allay, and would, I am quite sure, have detracted from the proceedings in this Committee. As he has frankly withdrawn nearly all, if not quite all, his allegations against the members of the tribunals, I need not dwell very long upon that point. I would only say that so far as my personal experience of tribunals in my own part of the country is concerned, I have found that because of the fact that I was an employer of labour or an owner of land having a tenant on that tribunal—or for some other reason of that sort—I was treated much more sternly by tribunals on which it might be thought I could bring some pressure to bear than if I had no connection with them, and I think that is the universal experience of Members of this House amongst those who could be thought to have a social pull. I am sorry my right hon. Friend used that expression, and I wish he had retracted it as he did the other part of his statement.

Let me say a word with regard to what took place in the Debate last week. There, again, my right hon. Friend has frankly told us that it is he who misunderstood the representations that were made by the chairmen of tribunals in this House—by my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Chairman of Committees and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesex (Sir H. Nield), and so forth—that it was he who misunderstood them, and not they who misunderstood and mistook the instructions given to the tribunals. He has told us quite frankly also that it was the retention by the War Office of a word which he had discarded from his official vocabulary which led to this misunderstanding on his part. There is, however, one remark I should like to make about the categorisation of men, and it is this: So long as the men were between the ages of eighteen and forty, the standard of physical fitness which you applied to them was practically a positive standard. Could a man do such a thing or could he not? Could he walk 5 miles or 10 miles? Could he haul a gun, could he fire a rifle straight, and so forth? It was a positive standard—

Sir A. GEDDES

It was so absolutely up to October, but these points which have just been referred to were all cut out at that time and have not been in use since.

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

My right hon. Friend will see the point I am going to make. When you proceed to apply the same standard of physical fitness to men of forty-three and fifty, you cannot apply a positive standard; it must be a relative standard. The sun shines in Mesopotamia with equal force on a man of forty-four as it does on a man of twenty-four. It shines much more fiercely on a man of forty-four, and yet you are testing him, as you think, by a lower relative standard of fitness. You say he is to be fit relative to his age. You cannot test him by that. In theory it may be all right, but in practice it is all wrong. The fever which assails' a man in a tropical climate, the desert in which he has to march, the heat in which he works, the want of water or food—there cannot be a relative standard. It must be a positive standard, but that weighs far more heavily on the man over forty-three than the man under that age. Therefore, unconsciously or consciously, and with the best will in the world, you are applying an absolutely different standard to these men you are sending into the Army. What has happened in regard to the examination of these men by medical boards? In the course of the Debate last week my right hon. Friend said that the action of the medical boards had caused him serious alarm, and he told us this afternoon that it was not the generality of medical boards which had caused him alarm, but a certain specific or limited number of such boards, and he then proceeded to tell us that there were certain safeguards which would protect the recruit when examined medically from any stupid or emotional action of the medical board. My right hon. Friend gave us a whole list of them. There were, I think, five appeals to various medical authorities, each of whom was to revise, if necessary, the decision of its predecessors. What we want to know is not whether on paper these safeguards are provided, but whether in practice they are observed. We want to know whether they are mere paper safeguards and illusory, or whether they are in practice for application to every recruit who thinks that he is ill-used in being put into a higher grade than his physical fitness ought to allow? Rich or poor, fortunate or unfortunate, whatever their station in life, they should all be brought before the board and relegated to categories irrespective of their previous social history.

We understand that at some period of his examination legal assistance is to be put at the disposal of the recruit if he so desires, if he can afford to pay for it, and if he knows he is entitled to employ it My right hon. Friend said it was impossible to stud the notice paper with warnings of every sort and kind, but let him think how important this is to a man who comes up to undertake a kind of work for which he was never prepared, and never had in his mind until he was actually called up, to know that all these chances of reconsideration are really open to him. I know quite a number of cases of men who have said they have been extremely well treated when called up for medical examination, but they have come back to me and said they had no idea there was any further medical examination. That was never pointed out to them on the papers by the persons by whom they were called up, or by the medical officers by whom they were examined, and when I said I understood there were further chances—I had no knowledge of this elaborate programme which has been mentioned this afternoon—they asked where they were to get them, how could they find out, and I confess that I was unable either to give them that information or to obtain it from any source of which I knew. I hope all the information my right hon. Friend has given us this afternoon may be spread broadcast throughout the classes of men who are to be included, and that the information he has given so freely will be put at their disposal as well as ours. I want to say one word on the 7 per cent. chart, and let me, in passing, remark how inconvenient I think it is to the House that we should have to rely on this system of charts. They are produced with the best intentions by the Minister, but it is not the way in which to afford information to the House.

Mr. PRINGLE

Give us a film!

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

We ought to have the information soon, and in a more specific way than can be given by this chart. What does the 7 per cent. mean? Upon what calculation does it rest? It cannot rest upon any previous knowledge of the medical condition of the persons to be examined. I asked six months ago upon what basis it rested and upon what calculation it was made, why you took 7 per cent instead of 10 or 5 per cent., whether it had reference to the losses in the field or to the population who might come within the purview of this Act, and I have never had an explanation. I listened very carefully to what was said this afternoon by my right hon. Friend, and he never ventured upon an explanation. It is no good showing me a chart and saying, "We calculated to take up 7 per cent., but we have, as a matter of fact, only called up one-third of 1 per cent." I want to know why you think these numbers of men between forty-three and fifty years of age would give you 7 per cent., and if, as a matter of fact, they do not give you 7 per cent. normally, are you so instructing your medical officers and your tribunals that whether the yield ought to be 7 per cent. or not it shall be 7 per cent.? I hope the Committee see the importance of this point. Supposing 7 per cent. represents 250,000 men, and the medical history of those people will only yield you 150,000 men, do you strain the orders to your medical boards in order to give you 100,000 men who are not really fit, but who, in order to make up your imaginary numbers, you are going to force into the Army, to the detriment both of the Army and of the civil population, which is deprived of their work? That seems to me to be the most important point which can be raised in connection with this Debate, and it is one upon which I hope we shall get some enlightenment. I think there is a good deal to be answered in this respect. In the Debate the other day the right hon. Gentleman said that instructions would be issued to the tribunals that more men of these ages must be obtained. Irrespective of their fitness or of their worth to the Army, more numbers, he said, must be obtained. Why must they be obtained—because they are fit?

Mr. PRINGLE

No; to make up for Ireland!

Sir C. HOBHOUSE

I do not know what the explanation is, and the Minister will no doubt give it, because otherwise you are taking men out of the civil population who are useful in production and putting them into the Army, where they become consumers and are no use as soldiers. That is the paint to which I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention, and to which I hope he will give an answer, either himself or through the mouth of the Under-Secretary. He will not, I hope, complain—in fact, he cannot complain—of the importance of this Debate, because unless the questions which are raised by the National Service Act are settled satisfactorily to the population which it affects, he will find that it is not only in Ireland that there will be serious objection taken to recruiting, but that the contagion will spread to this country.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN (Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means)

I am very glad, first of all, that the question of the tribunals has been cleared up quite adequately, because, as I understand the Minister, he frankly and most unreservedly withdraws any suggestion on his part that the tri- bunals were responsible for the detention of men in civil life who otherwise ought to have been in the Army, and that that detention had been caused by anything like a "social pull," because it is so-obvious that if that, were so, so far as the tribunals were concerned, a complete and absolute remedy lay in his own hands, since all he had to do was to touch the lover, and the National Service representative would at once appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, who would very promptly deal with the matter. And even if the Appeal Tribunal were at fault, the National Service representative would only have to ask for a review to at once bring the matter before the public, or, failing that, report it to the Local Government Board, and the matter would be adequately and promptly dealt with. It is satisfactory that that matter, however unfortunate the phrase was, has been definitely cleared up. I entirely agree with what the Minister said as to the protection which has been most unfairly given to very large numbers of young men under the wide umbrella of what is known as Munition Departments, men with not only direct official connection, but where there are sub-contracting firms. I entirely agree with him there, that that is a state of affairs which calls for prompt and effective handling, because it is quite obvious to us all that you cannot go on calling up men of the older ages while these young men are known to be about, getting large wages, when they ought to be serving the country in the Army.

I may be very captious and hypercritical, but I am still very nervous about the position with regard to the men of the older ages, and there is nothing, I am also sorry to say, which my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon to make it clear at all that there is going to be any change in regard to the fundamental criticism which we make—indeed, I will go farther and say which we respectfully demand-that the men of the older ages shall have at least as favourable a medical examination as the men of the lower ages. Sweeping all the charts aside, that is the real position. I see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition present, and I am sure that he will agree with me that that was the understanding upon which the Second Reading of the Bill was obtained. The Minister has told us that there were some standard definitions of what was meant by Grade 1, which were then in force, and, indeed, accessible to anybody who dug in the recesses of the Library for them, and that there had been no change from that. I want to examine that statement. What was the definition? In Number 13 of 1917, N.S.I., dated 17th November, 1917, it says: Grade 1 is generally equivalent to category A, i.e., general service, in the old classification. What is "general service"! Surely it means a man who can take his place in any part of the campaign, from the firing line to the back of the base line. The definition goes on: It includes those who attain the normal standard of health and strength, and are capable of enduring the amount of physical exertion suitable to their age. They must Be free from any serious organic disease or deformity. That was followed by M.N.S.R. 24 at a later date. I do not quite know that date.

Sir H. NIELD

In May.

Sir D. MACLEAN

Then that was after the passing of the last Military Service Act. I will read it: Grade 1.—This grade will comprise those who attain the normal standard of health and strength and are capable of enduring physical exertion suitable to their age. The men must not suffer from any organic disease, with certain exceptions specified hereafter, and must have no grave physical disability or deformity. Minor defects, such as of the teeth and of eyesight, which can be removed or compensated for by artificial means will not be regarded as disqualifications. Men who fulfil the conditions of Grade 1 will also be fit for general service in the Army. Again we have "general service." In the first circular quoted by me they were the governing words at the start of the definition. Here they are at the end, but still they are the dominating words of the whole definition. Now we come to the other document, that of the 29th April, 1918: Amendment of M.N.S.R. 24. Grade 1.—The older men will be placed in Grade 1 if they possess the full normal physical fitness to be expected of their age. Such men must not have any serious physical defect, and must not suffer from progressive organic disease. They must be able to endure physical exertion involving a considerable degree of strain, and to undergo gradual physical training in order to fit them for military duty. NOTE.—The physical training for the older men in this grade will be carried out under special medical supervision. Not one word there, in the circular of the 29th April, of men of this class being fit for general service. I suggest that the Minister, when he was making his replies to us on the floor of this House, neither when he read the definition in reply to a question, nor when he read the definition in reply to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Nield), did he mention one word about the question of being fit for general service in the Army. He directed his attention solely to this last circular of the 29th April. What I say is this: There can be no sort of doubt by anybody who applies an impartial mind—I am not saying I am impartial because I am feeling rather strongly about this, so please rule me out—but anybody who applies an impartial mind to this matter can come to no conclusion other than this, that there was a change in the physical standard by which men were to be examined after the Act was passed as compared with when the Bill was here in our hands. There can be no doubt about it. There was a change. I go farther and say that not only was that change made in the circular, but that the change was made in the instructions to the medical officers. I had the opportunity of meeting one or two medical officers of rather high standing in this matter, and they frankly admitted to me that the only thing they had to consider was whether a man was possessed of a sufficient physical fitness suitable to his age, and then they had no option but to pass him Grade 1. To the extent that I have attacked medical boards with regard to their classifying these men Grade 1 on that ground, I apologise to them. They were acting under orders. I will read what one medical officer who wrote to me said: I am, unwillingly, at present, a member of a medical board. Whilst the duties were confined to the younger men one was performing what was at best an unpleasant duty and a painful necessity. The examination of the older men, however, is another matter. Practically the whole of the rank and file of my board inwardly revolt against it, and it has only been the assurance that these older men when passed into the Army will be dealt with under careful medical supervision that has reconciled us to passing them in anything above Grade 2. He also said that the medical boards were not free agents on account of the instructions which had been issued and to which they had to work; and he went on to say, in rather a long letter, that any criticisms directed to them had been unfair because they were not free agents in the matter. They had to work to these instructions whether they liked it or not, and had to pass these men Grade 1. This is the fundamental question. Has there, or has there not, been a change in the medical standard? There has been a change. When these men come up, classed Grade 1, before the tribunal, they do not get the same consideration. We want Grade 1 men, and the result is that in tribunals throughout the country these men of the older age are getting far less consideration from the tribunals, as compared with men of the lower ages. Members who have seen notices in the Press will remember what I and my colleagues who are sitting with me upstairs were driven to do, namely, to treat Grade 1 as Grade 2. It is most unfortunate, I agree, that we should do so, because it brings us at once into direct conflict with the Department, with which we should like to work. What advantage is it to me to work against my right hon. Friend? We are engaged in a great War. We want all to work together, but it is profoundly important—and more important in war even than in peace—that we should see that people have some guarantee that they are treated on standards of fairness and justice. I agree it was a drastic step to take, but all I could do was to say, "Very well. It is called Grade 1; the only way in which we can work it is to call it Grade 2." All over the country there are men who have followed my example, and I suppose there are others who have not.

That is the sort of thing which cannot go on. It must not go on. We must come to a common understanding. I will put this to my right hon. Friend: Does he, or does he not, agree with me that the House—he was here through all the Debates—as a whole understood that the medical standard for the old men was to be the medical standard for the young men? That was what the House thought, anyhow, and that is the only fair thing. You will get a good many more men if graded 2. I passed in quite a number this morning because they were Grade 2, and, on the whole, it was a fair grade, and the pressure for men is great. There must be some way round this. Whatever it is, I do not know. It may be stated at a later date, but the present position, I repeat again, is really getting intolerable. You cannot go on having these tribunals acting in these different ways.

With all possible respect—I deliberately say this—unless we have an understanding—a clear understanding such as we arrived at with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board as to the Regula- tions—that the men of the older age are going to be at least as favourably considered from a medical point of view as men of a lower age, I shall unfortunately have to go on with the attitude I have taken. So will my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Sir H. Nield), and in the case of many tribunals all over the country. That is a state of affairs which is no credit to us as a people who want to pull together in this War. Let me repeat that there has been, as far as this House is concerned, a change in the medical standard, which is working unfairly and unjustly on the men between forty and fifty. It cannot go on, and they must be at least as fairly treated as the younger men.

There are one or two minor things I cannot allow to pass. All over the country men are still being asked at the conclusion of their medical examination to sign a paper, stating that they are satisfied with the way in which their medical examination has been conducted. To every lawyer in this House, and I hope to every fair-minded man, that is a most unjust procedure. It amounts to what we know as "duress," and if taken before any legal tribunal in the country, a signature under those circumstances is not worth the paper it is written on.

Sir A. GEDDES

It is absolute news to me that this is going on. It is also absolute news to the responsible officials of the Department. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me either now, or this evening, or to-morrow morning, where this is going on, because I am assured that there is no such proceeding? It did occur at Conduit Street. An official there, anticipating that he would receive complaints, started a complaint book, and it was at once turned into a certificate. It was most undesirable.

Mr. PRINGLE

But did this official tell them they had an appeal?

Sir A. GEDDES

Apart from that, I know of no such practice having arisen, and in this case it was stopped weeks ago.

Sir D. MACLEAN

I have letters from all over the country, and I have had statements made to me.

Sir G. BARING

In the case of a certain regional board, man after man, just after he had been examined, was asked to sign a book saying that he was satisfied with the examination.

Sir D. MACLEAN

I am very glad my right hon. Friend did not know it. Here is another matter. It is small, and I am sure he does not know of it. It is clear that any man who has been medically graded has, under the Regulations, the right within five days of lodging an appeal, and, as regards his calling-up notice, he has seven days to appeal. My right hon. Friend will be astonished to learn that in many cases it is the practice, where a man is passed Grade 1 or Grade 2, before he leaves the medical examination room, to be served with a calling-up notice. It telescopes the five and seven days, and the poor fellow leaves in a state often of collapse, not knowing where he is. There is another matter which is also rather small, but which I must really mention. The shortage of doctors, we all know, is getting extremely acute, and the call upon doctors on medical boards is very great. Therefore you are reducing the ordinary man's chance of getting a doctor to examine him and obtaining a certificate for the medical board to tell them really what is his physical condition. The result is that these men have no chance at all.

It was a sickening list I had last Thursday. I had only about ten or twelve cases to-day, and some, I admit, were cases without any foundation at all. But I wall just mention one case to-day. I took a careful note. This man had a hydrocele. He was forty-three. When he was examined he told a doctor something about the trouble. There was only one doctor who examined him, and, at the conclusion of the examination, he stripped the man and saw the hydrocele, and said, "You ought to be tapped." The man said, "I was tapped about three weeks ago." The man's physical deformity was apparent from his clothing. When that man left the medical room he was handed a card marked "Grade 1." It is quite evident that there has been, and is, a very, very grave condition of affairs. Nobody wants to make personal scores in time of war, or, indeed, at any time. It is not a bit of good. There is a common sense in this Assembly and a great sense of equity and justice which is always latent here. What I tell my right hon. Friend is this, that that sense of the House of Commons is against him on this point. Will he really recognise it? The House of Commons wants fairness for the men between forty and fifty—that they should have at least equality of medical examination with the younger men. That is the fundamental thing. Nothing else really matters. All the rest we can arrange.

I make another appeal to my right hon. Friend. I have made one or two already, and I am not at all without hope. Why not meet us on this matter? One would not mind if you were doing any good for the Army, but you are not. For every battalion of unfit men, or those men of older age who get into the Army, you want two battalions of really Grade 1 men to look after them. It is unjust to the individual, a burden to the Army, and has awful results in pensions. That is what I feel. There are five or six hon. Members in the House who know something about it. There is my hon. Friend (Sir W. Cheyne), there is the hon. Baronet, and there is my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Collins), who are great experts in that great profession. I am quite certain if we met together, we could settle the whole thing, always providing—I do not want any misunderstanding about this—that we get rid of this physical standard of fixing a man's grade according to his age, and not according to his physical fitness for the Army.

6.0 P.M.

Sir W. COLLINS

I have listened with very great interest to the valuable and good-natured speech made by the Minister of National Service. He told the Committee that hon. Members required information, and he imparted a good deal of it. I think in the speech to which we have just listened the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for National Service will probably agree that he himself has also received some information. This House is always ready to receive information, though perhaps it resents being instructed. The House does not in any way resent the introduction of lecture theatre diagrams if they serve to illustrate a question which does not lend itself to-statistical statement. This is not the first occasion on which this House, or Committee, has discussed the question of medical examinations. I well remember the Debates, and took part in them, during the time when the Review of Exceptions Bill was passing through Committee of this House. I remember that some of us gave warnings of the difficulties that would tend to persist in the method of categorisation. I remember the Second Reading of that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House assured us that steps would be taken to make the system of medical examination as perfect as possible, and so prevent the criticisms that had already occurred being repealed in the future. Nevertheless, in June of last year, when the Army Estimates, if I remember rightly, were under discussion, a further Debate took place on the question of these medical examinations. On that occasion I remember reminding the House that the honourable medical profession was probably seen at its best when it was doing its legitimate work in tending the sick and wounded on the field of battle, or in the casualty clearing stations, or in the base hospitals, or in the hospitals at home, and that it was probably seen at its worst when it was endeavouring—more or less unsuccessfully—to carry out the military directions that proceeded from an administrative authority. I also indicated at that time that, after all, medicine and surgery, though progressive sciences, were not exact sciences, and that they did not lend themselves very readily to this strict routine method of classification which a system of categorisation had imposed upon them. I said an impossible task was being placed upon the medical men who were asked to perform this process and duties of categorisation. I noticed in the Report of the Special Committee, which was at that time set up to consider the working of these medical examinations, that I received the unsolicited corroboration of the gentleman who was then inspector of recruiting in connection with the medical boards, and is now Chief Commissioner of Medical Service in the Ministry of National Service. In answer to question 394 he said: The first point I should like to make—because it is the basis of nine-tenths or a very large proportion of the difficulties we have to face—is that the medical profession in this matter has been asked to do an impossible task. You will remember what Sir William Collins said at the Debate on Thursday evening—one of the most important remarks, which perhaps did not quite attract the attention which it deserved—that the medical profession, in dealing with this matter of categorisation, had been set a task which is medically and physically impossible to carry out accurately and well. Nevertheless, at that time, to use a phrase of Charles Reade: The impossible had disguised itself as a fact and it was going through the hollow mockery of taking place. Those who endeavoured to criticise and call attention to this matter found that their words fell on deaf ears. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that he has remedied the method of categorisation by substituting the method of grading. I venture to think the question before the Committee is: have the defects disclosed in the former system under the War Office been removed by the transference of the administration to the National Service Department, and is the change from the seven categories into four grades—one of which grades also has three sub-divisions—eliminated the difficulties to which Sir James Galloway called attention in the evidence I have just quoted? I venture to think that it has not. We are still asking the doctors, who have struggled to do their best under most difficult circumstances, to do the impossible. I quite agree with the eulogistic remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Those who have endeavoured to carry out his instructions still maintain that under the four grades, one of which is sub-divided into three sub-heads, the same impossible task is being set as was the case with the seven categories of the former system. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, thinks, as he has now appointed an advisory medical board, that this is a purely medical question. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Sir D. Maclean) has indicated that it cannot be a purely medical question. It is not, as we were told the other evening by the right hon. Gentleman, comparable to a life insurance examination, nor is it like recruiting in the old peace days. There the problem was to pick out the fit and reject all the doubtful or the unfit—to take the plums and to pay no attention to the rest. At the present time, however, these boards are set the task of taking the whole male population from eighteen to fifty-one, and, as the result of a five to fifteen minutes' examination, classifying them into four grades for the purpose of fitness for military service. I have before me the various instructions which have been issued. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that he has got rid of the notion of the strategic or teleological motives which obtained under the old system, and has made it purely a medical question. He has not done so; it is impossible. It is a question of military knowledge, and also of medical knowledge, and, above all, common sense should be applied in order to decide to what use a man should be put to. The general proposition that we have heard that a man who is good for anything, say, in earning his livelihood in civil life, is good for something or other in the Army, is sufficiently disposed of by the Report of the Select Committee.

There is a good deal of confusion of thought in the proposition that a man who is fit, for his age, is therefore fit for some service or other in the Army. It is quite clear that when you reach a certain age that a man may be fit for his age but yet entirely unfit for any purpose in the Army. He may be ah octogenarian! Surely when you begin to sort out the whole population it must appear that as you get nearer to the older ages and further away from the younger ages that there must be a larger proportion who, though they may be fit for their age, may not be fit for any military purposes. The older men, therefore, cannot be expected to be put into the top class, whether you call it Grade 1 or Category 1, in anything like the same proportion to their total number as is the case in the second or the third decade of life. On that point I have great sympathy with the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last endeavoured to enforce. I agree with him that a solution of this problem must not be, and cannot be, found by hard and fast methods of instruction or direction to boards. We hear of the London board being slowed down—whatever that may mean! We heard the other day of the reaction of the German offensive in another connection. We have heard of a circular in the Library which indicated that the number of men sent forward must be doubled. These kind of things suggest that the boards are not free agents, and you cannot expect to get the best work out of them under those circumstances. I would close, as I began, by saying that the medical profession does not require justification. Those who recall the fact that in this great War more than 1,000 casualties have come from the medical profession serving at the front, that more than 200 have made the supreme sacrifice, and that many others have fallen wounded upon the field—I say, with this in view, the medical profession requires no justification. It has done its service well in this War. But it cannot do impossible tasks. I think that this method of making examinations, whether according to category or by the grade system, is setting an impossible task to the medical profession.

Sir H. NIELD

I should like to associate myself entirely, if the right hon Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) will allow me, with the words which fell from him a few minutes ago when he gave an experience as chairman of the principal section of the County of London Tribunal. The problem the Ministry of National Service must face at once is the question of whether or not they can guarantee that when a man passes out of their control the Army will recognise the standard which they themselves have tried to set up. I listened very carefully to the speech which was made last Thursday, and I have listened carefully to the speech which was made by the Minister of National Service to-day. He has frankly told us that he cannot guarantee that the War Office will do this or do that. That is what troubles chairmen of tribunals. They are confronted now by the most difficult cases. The higher the age the more difficult the case, because a man has got ramifications in business to a very large extent and deeper than the younger men—though it is astonishing to find how often men under forty are in the position of the control of, and of being indispensable to, very large affairs in the commercial world. The difficulties are increased tenfold when you come to deal with men between forty-three and fifty-one who are engaged in business. If we are told, as we have been told for some months past, that if they are found to be Grade 1 men—and the idea has been up to quite recently that a Grade 1 man necessarily meant a man fit for general service—there are at least three circulars justifying our supposing that that is the case—then many a man has been sent into the Army who is not fit for the Army because of the pressure that has been put by the National Service Ministry upon chairmen of tribunals, who have accepted that grading as being indicative of a man of full health and capable of doing work in the Army. Let us see for a moment how the matter stands. There still seems to be some obscurity as to what was meant by the 7 per cent.—and I am glad to see the Prime Minister is on the Front Bench now, for speaking in this House on 9th April, on the occasion of the passing of the Military Service Bill of this year, he said: The proportion of men from forty-two up to fifty whom we expert will be available is not very high—something like 7 per cent.; that is only 7 per cent. of the men from forty-two to fifty will be available for the Army. I hope I have made that clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1918, col. 1355, Vol. 104.] I will accept that. We understand to-day that 7 per cent. of the total number of men who are between those ages are brought in by the new Military Service Act of the present year. Seven per cent. of these men will be fit for the Army in the sense that they will be expected to be fit for the firing line. I do not think the Prime Minister dissents from that view.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George)

I never said that.

Sir H. NIELD

No, no!

The PRIME MINISTER

I presumed that it would be 7 per cent.

Sir H. NIELD

I agree, I agree! I read out the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and then I said I understood that he meant the firing line.

The PRIME MINISTER

No, no!

Sir H. NIELD

Very well; that shows the issue. The Prime Minister was more generous to the older men. Let us see what was said by the Minister for National Service, speaking in this House on 20th June—that is, last Thursday. He said: He would be a brave man who, because of some personal disagreement with the policy that has been followed, would say that he would not allow these men to pass through to the forces. They are required and urgently required. It was announced to the House two months ago that 7 per cent. of the total block of men of the new age were going to be required to be posted this year. That has been twisted and turned as if it meant that only 7 per cent. of them will be fit for service. The statement stands—I have repeated it on many occasions in the House—as true to-day as it was then, that it is absolutely necessary, if we are not to dislocate our arrangements for maintaining the forces in the field, that we should have 7 per cent. of the total number of men of the new age before the end of this year and that they should come in a steady flow. That is a very different thing.

Sir A. GEDDES

Speaking on the 15th of April last, in Committee on the Military Service Bill, I said: The Prime Minister said, in introducing this Bill, that 7 per cent. of the men affected by the extension of the age to fifty would be liable to be called up this year. That is to say, it has been estimated by the responsible Department that the rate of recruiting of these older men, even under the pressure for men which now exists, will be rather slower than the rate of recruiting which has affected the men of the age period immediately junior to them.

Sir H. NIELD

I will switch off that point and give a practical illustration of what is taking place. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford put down a question, and he asked the Minister of National Service— If he will state what the total number of men examined and the number of man passed Grade 1 by the National Service medical boards at Bristol for the weeks ending the 4th, 11th, 18th and 25th May, and the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd June last, respectively; and what number of such men were between forty-three and fifty-one years of age. The answer to that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Beck) as follows: It would be contrary to the public interest at the present time to give the figures asked for by my hon. Friend, but I may say that excluding re-examinations the percentage of the total number of men of the old military age examined at Bristol during May and the first fortnight of June who were passed Grade 1 was 71 per cent., while the percentage of the total number of men over forty-three examined who were passed Grade 1 was 18.6 per cent. That question was asked because the medical board at Bristol were passing men too quickly. I take the lower figure because it is smeared on my paper, and I will assume they were passing Grade 1 at the rate of 6 per cent. I do not know whether it is 6 per cent. or 16 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Minister for National Service went down to Bristol, and, as a result of his intervention, the percentage was raised to 21.5 per cent.

Sir A. GEDDES

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that I went down to Bristol and interviewed the medical board?

Sir H. NIELD

Yes.

Sir A. GEDDES

Since the passing of this Act?

Sir H. NIELD

Yes; such is my information. The letters I have received say that the Minister for National Service went down. And I am ready to communicate to the right hon. Gentleman the letter which contains the statement I have made, suppressing the name of my correspondent.

Sir A. GEDDES

I was down there the week before last, but the statement that I saw the medical board, or any member of it, so far as I know, is incorrect. I did see the Commissioner, but I have no recollection of having discussed the action or the working of the Bristol Medical Board with him. I did hear that the medical boards had received instructions that they were to increase the number of men passed in Grade 1, and as soon as I heard that I went down to see exactly what was happening. On arrival there I found that this particular board had been passing a very high percentage of men in Grade 1, and that it had received no instructions but a table showing that, as a result of this work, a very much larger number were being put into Grade 1 than other boards. I was told that someone had said that they had been instructed to raise the percentage of Grade 1 men, whereas, as a matter of fact, their attention was being drawn to the fact that they were passing too high a percentage. I imagine that because I went down to find out about that matter that that is the reason this inaccurate statement got about. I did not see the board at Bristol.

Sir H. NIELD

As far as I am concerned, the letter I have shows that my statement is perfectly well founded. The question put to them from the Department was put with a view of seeing whether those boards have, in fact, passed 21 per cent. and 22 per cent. of Grade 1 men. The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means quoted a letter from the Midlands. I also have received one from the Midlands, and I will read it to the Committee: 24th June, 1918. Sir,—I am a member of a medical board and have been reading your interview. That members of medical boards disagree with the calling up of men over forty-five for medical service is, I think, shown by the enclosed cutting from the 'Birmingham Mail.' I may say that there was no cutting enclosed. The letter proceeds: The doctor's letter therein I should think fairly represents the views of members of medical boards. I have frequently heard such views expressed. Nevertheless, I would contend that the examinations are fair. Every man is asked if he is satisfied with his examination before he signs the book. The responsibility for calling men up to fifty for the Army is Parliament's. The responsibility for grading 'fit for age' is the National Service boards and is, I suppose, sanctioned by Parliament. Occasionally mistakes must occur, but really the percentage is very few. In saying this I do not contend that the men passed Grade 1 are fit for military service. The general opinion of members of medical boards is that they are not, but the responsibility is not theirs. They can only grade men on the lines laid down in the pamphlet of instructions issued to them. Members of Parliament have protected themselves from military service at any age and imposed military service on medical men up to fifty-six, a curious contrast, and an instance of class legislation. There was no protest from Parliament on this account. You speak of medical boards dividing Grade 3 men into A, B and C classes. They do no such thing. They grade a man 1, 2, or 3, and there their work ends. The President of the Board, an Army man himself, makes this distinction, and the examining boards have no say in it. The whole thing is a gigantic farce—the comb-out a mockery—the works comb out the men they do not want to keep. Even to-day at the medical board two or three hunchbacks and two men with crippled arms presented themselves for examination. The young fit men are kept by the works, and declared to be indispensable. Manufacturers' own sons are practically all indispensable. The friends that they take into the works for nominal purposes find shelter under the umbrella, and are also indispensable. A young fit man is graded 1, his friends get at the employer, a controlled firm, they apply direct to the Ministry of Munitions for the man and get a secret instruction to keep him. Kipling would have to change his tune if he wrote now, and it would be: The young men cheer in their thousands, As the grand-dads go to the War. To see the crowd of often grey-headed men, out of all physical condition, either toil-worn workmen or fat shopkeepers, ill-nourished elderly clerks, that present themselves for examination, makes one doubt the sanity of those who call them up. A certain proportion of them are graded 1. There is no alternative if one follows instructions, but, oh, the crop of pensions that will follow their wholesale breakdown when exposed to hardship! A little introspection should lead Members of Parliament, instead of blaming medical boards for carrying out their enactment as defined by the National Service Board, to consider whether the blame is not their own, for sanctioning the calling up of older men before there had been a real comb-out of the young and fit. That is one of a great number of letters showing dissatisfaction attached to the medical boards acting upon those instructions. Those instructions ought to be promptly reviewed. Let me give the Minister of National Service a few instances in addition to those I have already given to the House. There is the case of a man named Greenshields, of Kenning-ton Park-road, aged forty-four. He was examined at Conduit Street on the 21st May, 1918, and put into Grade 1. He was re-examined at Whitehall, apparently under the chairmanship of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means on the 24th June, and he was reduced to Grade 3. If that man had not been sent back by the tribunal sitting upstairs he would have passed into the Army as Grade 1, but he was reduced to Grade 3 because he had suffered from fistula and h æmorrhoids for sixteen years and he had been operated upon in 1914; he was suffering also from varicose veins, and œdema of legs and feet; his eyesight was bad, he had myopia and astigmatism, his right eye was practically blind, and his left eye defective. Can it be supposed that a man of that description was passed as Grade 1? It has been said that Grade 1 is to be regarded as the equivalent of Al under the old system.

Now I come to another matter, and while I am anxious not to keep the Committee, I think this is a question which does call for the strongest denunciation on the part of those who have to deal with these matters. In spite of the instruction that tuberculosis must be regarded as a matter vital to keeping a man out of the Army, these cases are passing into the Army again and again. In this case I again offered to put the information I possess into the hands of the Minister of National Service. I pass over a number of cases, and I come to one which I must read. It is the case of a man named Blucert, who had flat feet, was suffering from jaundice and gall stones, requiring an immediate operation. He was relegated to the Reserves by that notorious board, the Mill Hill Board, in 1917, after two hours' examination into the documents. The Committee will be astonished to hear that when certain documents were called for to clear up a certain point the whole dossier was, figuratively, thrown at our heads, and in that dossier appeared correspondence from the medical authorities at Mill Hill suggesting to the War Office that I should be prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for having called attention to the improper grading that was going on. That affords an illustration of what the temper was at that time. That particular board at Mill Hill had rejected this man in 1917 after two hours' examination, and yet he was passed as Grade 1 at Whitehall on the 13th of the present month. Surely that is an indication of the way in which these examinations are taking place. One more ease, and I have finished— Maurice Geller.—Stones in kidney. One already removed by operation. Attended hospital for six years. Was graded by the medical board at Whitehall on the 20th of this month, Grade 2, notwithstanding the instructions of the Ministry of National Service, S.R. 24, that such a man was to be rejected. That is the condition of things. Can you wonder when you look at the conditions that are imposed? I am told that in two sessions, nominally two and a half hours each, or five hours altogether, which generally becomes six hours, and often seven, before they can clear up and get away, for which the sum of two guineas is paid, an eminent doctor, whose name I will not mention, but who practises as a specialist, was called upon to examine between sixty and seventy hearts in a day. Is it possible, under those conditions, that men can be properly examined, with several boards sitting, with a number of clerks present, and with a number of recruits being examined? Roughly speaking, some hundred men were talking and asking questions, and yet the delicate operation of listening to the beats of the heart had to be performed by a doctor who values his reputation at the rate of sixty men per day, and that for the handsome remuneration of two guineas. We have complained of the operations of certain boards, and I think the Committee has a right to complain that the very men of the Army Medical Corps who were found unsuited for this work have been retained under the new system. The same notorious president of the Camber-well Board who was shown again and again to be most unfitted for his position has not only been retained under the new system, but has actually been appointed Assistant-Director of the whole region of London. There you have a man who, according to my information—and it is professional information—is not the kind of man to secure the best results by any means. I will invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Colonel Lewtas and to Colonel Tyrrell. We were assured that the change meant civil board instead of military boards, but military men have been retained, and will continue the system as presidents and overseers, and it is that to which we object. If an alteration were made in that respect, and if the highly respected chief of the medical services would reconsider those points, I think he would be materially able to cure the defects of which we com-plain in certain parts of London. I feel that unless and until the question is grappled with firmly there will be no material alteration.

I propose, just briefly, to refer to one or two points that my right hon. Friend made against me last week when he replied to me, I think a little unfairly, in respect of three matters. When he was reading the instructions defining the new grading as compared with the old classification, he thought that I scored a debating point by asking him to read on to the end of the instruction, which con- tained the vital words, that Grade 1 was equivalent to the old A1 of Army classification. I thought that was the kernel of the whole business. He thought it was only a debating point. We are accustomed when we cite documents in Courts of law to read the whole of the document from beginning to the end, that part which is for us and that part which is against us. To-day the right hon. Gentleman says that we are under a misapprehension as to the effects of that instruction, and that we have misunderstood it, but, as my right hon. Friend below me pointed out, it has been repeated again and again. It was repeated in the circulars of February and of April, and until this very moment there has been nothing official to distinguish the status given by the old classification from that given by the new grading. There was another point to which I called attention. I said that the circular issued on 3rd June had given rise to the whole difficulty of the medical boards by speeding them up. It was a circular issued by the Deputy-Controller of the London region. My right hon. Friend expressed very considerable surprise, and stated that when he became acquainted with the fact in the ordinary course of routine he at once summoned a meeting of the chairmen of the whole of the medical boards and explained the mistake. The instruction was cancelled and withdrawn within a week. I make this complaint against my right hon. Friend. He will remember that he received a very courteous letter, signed by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Shields, some few days before the question was put down. I am sure that he will not deny that he received that letter. It was acknowledged by his secretary, who said that the right hon. Gentleman had been away in the provinces, but he would write an answer and receive a deputation at an early date. That was dated 1st June. No further communication was received from him, and on 6th June a question was put down for 10th June, asking whether any alteration in the instructions which had been given to the medical boards as to grading had been made. He complains of my having made a point of that fact. If that medical circular had been so promptly corrected, why in the world was it not told me in answer to the courteous letter of the hon. Member for Shields and myself?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck)

My right hon. Friend was away in the country, and I was more or less in charge. I understand that Sir James Galloway telephoned my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Shields, asking them to call, so that he might explain the matter, and the hon. Member for Shields did call and see him on this point.

Sir H. NIELD

This is the first time I have heard of any communication by telephone to my chambers or to my house asking me to call. I know that my hon. Friend told me that he had received such a request, but why was it not promptly said, when writing to me on 1st June, that this circular of 3rd May was to be cancelled immediately, instead of leaving me under any misapprehension? I think it is a matter in regard to which I have some right to complain. I do not propose to say anything more with regard to the complaints about the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Manchester. I notice that has been rectified by my right hon. Friend, who has said that his words have received a meaning which he did not intend to convey. He also said that he said something which was not reported. I wish that he had taken care to see that that portion of his speech in regard to keeping back men by protection certificates had been reported, because the number of men protected by those certificates is a very large proportion. I hope that he will take care that the observations which were not reported at Manchester are promptly made public as far as it is possible to do so. When one comes to consider the case of the older men and the sympathy entertained for them by the right hon. Gentleman, one's recollection is at once brought to the words of Lewis Carroll in that very celebrated work, "Alice in Wonderland," when dealing with the walrus and the oysters: 'I weep for you,' the walrus said, 'I deeply sympathise,' With sobs and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size, Holding his pocket handkerchief Before his streaming eyes. I assure him that we are called upon to administer a very painful duty, and, having to do it constantly week in and week out, we feel that the position is one of very great difficulty for us, and that unless we are materially helped with regard to the difficult question of grading and are able to have more confidence in the medical board's decisions we shall be obliged to consider whether it is possible to go on any longer under the present onerous conditions.

The PRIME MINISTER

I would not have intervened in this Debate had it not been that there are two or three matters which require to be cleared up from the general point of view. I regret that I did not hear some of the speeches which have been delivered in the course of this Debate, but I have had a summary of them given to me. The Committee will bear in mind the circumstances under which the additional demands upon the man-power of the country were made. It is not a question of sympathising with the men who are called up. I am perfectly certain that everybody does that, and that my right hon. Friend has the deepest sympathy with people who have to part with their businesses and give up their professions, as has my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down. I am sure that he will be the first to acknowledge that It is an invidious task, Whether you administer National Service, or whether you assist in the machinery as a chairman of a tribunal.

It was nothing but the grim necessities of the hour and the danger in which our country was placed that forced us to propose a singularly drastic measure for calling more men to the Colours. About 6,000,000 men have been taken out of civil life in this country, including those who have volunteered. Any measure now for taking more men must necessarily mean greater hardships than those that were imposed upon the first drafts for military service, and the difficulties of those who administer these Acts are great, as my hon. and learned Friend knows very well. I cannot help thinking that a good deal of the trouble which has arisen has been due to a misunderstanding. The older men, and specially those who are to serve, are under the impression, when they are graded in the way which has been described by speeches in this House, that it means that they are to pass into the fighting line. That is not so. When I talked about 7 per cent. of the men between forty-three and fifty-one, I did not mean 7 per cent. for the fighting line. There is no intention of that—none. I have in front of me the proposals of the War Office with regard to the use to be made of these men. It is rather in the services behind the line and in services in this country, but it does enable the military authorities to comb out men who would be fit to put into the fighting line if you have other fit men to take their places behind the line. To that extent it is increasing the combatant strength of the Army. It is very important that that should get into the minds not merely of the men themselves, but also of the tribunals administering these Acts. If it be assumed that you are taking the men of forty-five to fifty and putting them to fight in the front trenches, there is no intention of that kind at all. From the Army point of view, it would be folly and it is quite unnecessary. Of that I can reassure the Committee.

At the same time, seeing that there is a misunderstanding, it is important that it should be cleared up. I am sorry that I was not present when my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Chairman of Committees spoke, because he is a special authority on this subject. I understand he threw out the suggestion that Members of this House who are chairmen of tribunals should meet my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, and enter into this matter and try to clear it up. That is a most admirable suggestion. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Geddes)—that is my apology for interrupting the course of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) at that very moment. It is an admirable suggestion, and is far and away the best means of clearing up the misunderstanding. I believe there are seven Members of this House who, as chairmen of tribunals, have direct and special experience of the administration of these Acts. It is a difficult task they are discharging. They are coming up day by day against these questions, some of them very hard questions. No doubt some of the cases mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend are very hard cases. There will always be hard cases. The whole business is a hard business. War is a hard business—a very hard business. You will always have exceptionally hard cases. My right hon. Friend who is administering this Act thinks it is desirable that these gentlemen should come together, and interchange views, so that my right hon. Friend could get the benefit of the special experience of those who are administering these Acts, and should clear the matter up. I have not the faintest doubt that, if they do meet, all these difficulties will be swept on one side, and the public will be considerably reassured in regard to the subject. I am very glad to be able to say that they have arranged to meet. The sooner they meet the better, because it is interfering with the administration of the Acts, and the need for men is very great. The need for men behind the line is very great. It is not merely a need for men for the firing line. The need for men behind the line is almost as great, if not greater. For that reason I sincerely trust that this meeting will be arranged at the earliest possible moment, and that they will be able to clear up these difficulties, and to reassure the public and the tribunals upon this subject.

Major Sir B. FALLE

Will the discussion be without limitation?

The PRIME MINISTER

They can discuss the whole subject. I hope that when they meet there will be no attempt to set any limitation upon the discussion, because it is of the greatest importance that my right hon. Friend should have the full benefit of discussion with these gentlemen, who know so well, from what they have had to encounter, what are the difficulties in the administration of the Act, and we shall be grateful for their help. I know that the men of forty-three to fifty-one are only too anxious to do their best for their country, but they want to be treated fairly, It is the intention of my right hon. Friend that they should be treated fairly—I know it. In my judgment and in his judgment they are being treated fairly; but there is a misunderstanding about it. Therefore, let us clear it up. That is all I have to say on that subject. I think the sooner the meeting takes place the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. MOLTENO

Will the results of the meeting be made public?

The PRIME MINISTER

I hope there will be some method of making them clear. If there be any misunderstandings, they must be cleared up in public; otherwise the necessary purpose would not be achieved.

Sir TUDOR WALTERS

Will you put down the Vote for the salary again, and not pass it to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER

As I am not in charge of the business of the House, I may be upsetting the whole arrangements by doing that.

Mr. PRINGLE

If no other question arises the Government will get the Vote on the last day of Supply.

The PRIME MINISTER

Unless promises have been given. As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Opposition who really fix the Votes to be taken for discussion. That is the tradition of the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tells me that he agrees that the Vote should not be passed to-day. May I say one word in addition? There is an idea that the older men are taken, and that there is no combing out of the young men. I am very glad to be able to say that that is incorrect. We want the younger men for the fighting fine. At the present moment, for every one man over forty-three who is posted, there are thirty young men being posted. I do not want to give the figures, for the simple reason that it would suit the enemy very well if someone were to got up, and give the figures of the numbers of men posted. I can assure the Committee that the number of young men being combed out is very considerable. Here, again, I want to make rather a special appeal. The objections there do not come from the young men, but, naturally, from the industries. Each industry begins to protest. One industry says, "If you take the young men, then this industry cannot produce coal." Agriculture says, "We cannot produce the necessary corn." You go to another industry, and they say, "We cannot turn out the necessary munitions." In each case the protest is a perfectly bonâ fide one. It is made, not in order to protect particular men, but rather in order to increase or to maintain the output. If you were to treat each case on its merits, it would be very difficult to answer it, but the aggregate result would be that we should not get the men.

Therefore, I would make a special appeal to those who feel in their hearts that they have a very good case to present to the House and the country in respect of a particular industry, to remember that the same appeal is made in respect of each industry, and that if we were to grant the concession in respect of those industries, the result would be we should not get our men. The emergency is a serious one; it is an overwhelming one. I can assure the Committee that the need for men is one of which the Government are bound to take note, and the House of Commons itself, which is ultimately responsible, is also bound to take note of it. I know the effect upon the output in these cases, but the comb-out in this country is incomparable with the comb-out in Germany or in France. I want the Committee to bear that in mind. I know it is said that the Americans are coming. It is perfectly true that the Americans are coming, and are prepared to be brigaded with our divisions. But that is on the distinct understanding that, when the new comb-out materialises, the men who come in will take the place of the Americans, so that they can form their own divisions. That is the honourable understanding on which President Wilson was prepared to send a very large force of Americans to France, in order to be brigaded with the British Forces. Under these conditions, it is vital to us and to this country that we should proceed with the comb-out, drastic as it is, in order to maintain the strength of our Armies in the field, that they may be able to defeat the enemy, and that we may also maintain the power of this country at a time when it is so vital to us.

Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON

I am sure the speech of the Prime Minister is one which will be received with great satisfaction, not only by this Committee, but by the public of this country. As one of those who have acted for the last two years as chairmen of tribunals, may I say that the Minister of National Service is quite wrong when he starts out to make an attack upon tribunals as not having the same concern and the same desire to assist the Government in the conduct of this War as he has himself. We have precisely the same anxiety to see this War successfully prosecuted. The right hon. Gentleman went too far when he said, addressing those chairmen like my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Chairman of Committees, myself, and other members of this Committee who have given this voluntary work for two years, that we were, in making public criticism of the way medical boards have done their work, doing something detrimental to the best interests of the country. I do not accept that view. My own view is that, if that protest had not been made, we should have failed to get the very satisfactory assurance we have just received from the head of the Government. May I state briefly the reasons which prompt me, at any rate, to speak in terms of severe criticism of the way in which the medical boards—I do not say it is the doctors upon them—or the way in which the medical board system has been conducted under the management of the Ministry of National Service. It is not a small matter. It has been quite unnecessary, without adding a single fit man to the Army. These boards have been the means of passing as lit for service thousands of men who were admittedly unfit for service. It causes untold misery and suffering which are not only undeserved, but quite unnecessary, and which do not contribute an iota to the winning of the War. Incidentally in doing what they do they are hampering rather than strengthening the Army, and have been the means of causing amongst the public a widespread discontent. The facts are not disputed. The fact that these boards, in numerous cases, have failed to put men in anything like the right categories cannot be disputed. The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Chairman of Committees told us the other day—and it is our experience too—that something like one man out of every three men who are sent to the assessors is either rejected or placed in a lower grade. It is not our condemnation, but the condemnation of the Ministry's own assessors, which is called in evidence to show that these boards are not doing what was properly expected of them by those who set them up.

7.0 P.M.

May I join with the Minister of National Service in paying my tribute to the way in which the doctors themselves have done their work? The doctors cannot fairly be blamed. I was taken last Saturday over the Conduit Street medical establishment. It was not known who I was. I was taken over by Dr. Sydney Smith. I went through several rooms. I was struck with the consideration and courtesy shown to each one of the men during their examination. I was very much impressed with the desire of the doctors, in each examination of a recruit, to give to him the same careful attention as would have been the case if the man had been his private patient and was asking for his opinion. That is not the point. The point is that the doctors are put under limitations which make a proper examination under the present system impossible. I had not a stop-watch with me at the time, but, roughly speaking, I should say that the examination lasted something like four minutes. It was made by two doctors, and the chairman of the board, sitting at the table, went through the medical sheets and considered whether or not the man should be placed in the grade suggested by one of the doctors or in that suggested by the other doctor, because, in a great many cases, the doctors do differ on this point. That is the first reason why I say the boards do not get a fair chance. There is another reason which I think is very deserving the attention of the Committee and of the public. The boards act continually under the spur of my right hon. Friend. Whenever they do their work, as he regards it, slowly, whenever the grading is not exactly what he considers it should be, or whenever too many men are placed in Grade 2, notice is sent out, in tones savouring of reprimand, to the board for doing what it is doing. The board is reprimanded because it puts in the category it thinks right men whom my right hon. Friend's advisers hold should be in a higher category. The third reason the board is not given a fair chance is that the members are compelled to grade men, not by fitness for work but by fitness at the age in which they happen to be. My right hon. Friend has challenged me to give an explanation of what I call the incitement to grade men too high. [An HON. MEMBER: "An illustration of the reprimand!"] I may point to the circular of the 3rd April, which was sent round to the medical boards. Will the Committee be good enough to give me their attention for a moment, as this is really a very important matter? This circular sets out, in words which would rejoice the heart of a special pleader, four examples showing how different medical boards working in the same region have done their work. I will not read the whole of the figures. I will take two extreme cases. One board—call it Board B—placed 19 per cent. of the men whom it examined in Grade 1. Board D placed 39 per cent in that grade, hoard B, again, puts 59 per cent. in Grade 3, while Board D only put 18 per cent. in that grade.

Mr. BECK

Was not this before the last Act was passed?

Mr. RICHARDSON

I am a ware of that. But I am using the illustration to show the way in which medical boards are incited to put men in a higher grade. Now the disparity in the work of the two boards may be accounted for on three hypotheses. I may be that the two boards were examining men who were in the same standard but who happened to be physically different, and that they were therefore justified in placing the men to that extent in different grades. That is my first theory. The second theory is that one board graded the men too highly, and the third theory would be that the men who were placed in a low grade by one board were graded on too low a standard. My right hon. Friend evidently makes no investigation as to which of these three hypotheses are right, but he jumps to the conclusion that the Board which is placing the men in the lower grade is wrong, that boards are putting men in Grade 3 without sufficient reason, and that by a more careful selection and by grading the men more closely in accordance with the approved standard many men now put in Grade 3 might well be placed in a higher grade. He does not suggest that the men who have been placed by the other board to a very large extent and in a higher ratio in the higher grade have not been properly so placed, or that the board has exceeded its duty, but he attacks the boards which have placed too many men-as he regards it, in the lower grade and too few in the higher. He goes on to say in this circular: It must, however, be impressed on all concerned that the constant practice of grading too low by National Service medical boards is necessarily followed by the loss of men for the Army who are well suited for military service. That is what I mean by the spur and incitement to medical boards who, according to their independent judgment, are doing right. They are by a document of this character incited by the Minister to act otherwise, and they are told, for his purpose, to put men in a grade which they themselves think they should not be put in. That is one of the remarkable bundle of circulars which the right hon. Gentleman has placed in the Library. The second is a document which was referred to the other evening, and which, I think, deserves even closer attention than it then received, and certainly a better answer than was given by the Minister. On the 3rd May—we are now coming down to a recent date—a gentleman named C. H. Bedford, described as "Commissioner of Medical Services, London regions," sends out a document from the Ministry of National Service, the effect of which is that every man shall be examined by one doctor only, but, in order to deceive the recruit, and to cheat him into the belief that he is being examined by two doctors, it is laid down that the second doctor shall go through the pantomime of an examination, although, in fact, there is no separate examination.

Mr. BECK

Read it.

Mr. RICHARDSON

Yes; I will read it. The words are: So far as possible, in view of the necessity for prompt action….the recruits will be examined throughout by one examiner, who will be careful to refer all questions of doubt to his colleague as well as to the chairman. And later it goes on to say: And ordinarily confirmation of the chief features of the examination should be duplicated, e.g., heart examination, to prevent the usual complaint of recruits that they have only been examined by one doctor. Clearly that is the purpose of the second examination. It is not that the second doctor may form an independent judgment, but he is to go through the pantomime of placing a stethoscope against the man's chest. This document I know has, and quite rightly, been repudiated by my right hon. Friend. Directly it was brought to his notice he cancelled it, and I do not for a moment impute to him the spirit which underlies it. I understand, too, that the chairmen of many boards have been told to disregard this circular. There is only one other document I would like to refer to, and again I use it simply as an illustration of the way in which medical directions are sent out. It deals with the ease of some munition workers who were found affected by T.N.T. poisoning. The doctors had the hardihood to put them in Grade 2 thinking they were not men who were quite fit for general service purposes. Their action in so doing called down upon their heads denunciation from the National Service Ministry. This document is signed by "J. Wallace, Deputy Commissioner of Medical Services," and it reads thus: It has been brought to (our) notice that a number of munition workers have been found to be temporarily unfit for service in the field (and placed in Grade 2) because they are suffering from the minor effects of T.N.T.… The Chairman of the T.N.T. Committee, Ministry of Munitions….states that the minor effects of T.N.T. poisoning are best treated by placing the affected person under conditions as regards fresh air, exercise and good feeding, such as recruits experience while training. Under these conditions the T.N.T. is rapidly eliminated and its effects disappear. This is confirmed by the S.I.O., Woolwich Arsenal. This is only one out of a bundle of these circulars which have been sent out, and I do not think I am wasting the time of the Committee in inviting attention to them. I suggest that my right hon. Friend in sanctioning the issue of circulars of this character is really not discharging the duties of his office in a way the public has a right to expect. So far as these documents are concerned, they do not do justice either to him or to the medical examiners or to the boards to whom they are addressed. It is largely owing to the issue of such circulars as these that men have been landed into the position in which they find themselves of never knowing whether the grade in which they are placed has the slightest relation to the service which they may ultimately be called upon to perform. I think I have demonstrated that these medical boards are not treated fairly by being allowed to do their best under the circumstances under which they have to work. My third point is that the system of grading is one which can never be satisfactorily worked by any medical board or any medical men in the world. They are told they must not have regard to the military character of the work for which the man is to be used, but they have simply to say whether the man is a fit man for his age. What does that really amount to? Let me give one illustration. It is a hypothetical case. A man of twenty-five comes up for examination; he is found to be suffering from some organic disease which may not be severe or progressive, but still the doctors think he is not fit for Grade 1; and therefore, holding that he may be fit for garrison work at home, they put him in Grade 2. The next recruit examined is a man of fifty. He is not suffering from any organic disease. He is suffering from the increasing weight of years and is, in the opinion of the doctors, able to do the same work as the younger recruit of twenty-five who has just been put into Grade 2—garrison work at home. That man, being normal for his age, is put in Grade 1, and when these two men come before the tribunal applying for exemption—I do not say the London tribunals do it, because we know too much. We know why a man is put there. But with hundreds of tribunals throughout the country what is the fate of those two men? Of the Grade 1 man of fifty they say, "We are very sorry. He is older, but is found by the board to be the fitter man. He must go," while the young man of twenty-five in Grade 2 is left. The fact is that according to this system of grading they are precisely of the same military value, and one man, being twenty-five years older and probably less fit to do the work and more useful in civil life, is the man who has to go into the Army. I should have thought that was clear. It must be clear surely to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not obvious? What is the answer to it? I quite follow what he has said as to the many advantages of the system which he suggests, but what is the answer to this fatal flaw in it, that it misleads every tribunal which has to adjudicate on these cases? Is not that a good reason for altering it? If not, what does he regard as a good reason for altering any system which has been set up by his Department? I should have thought that was conclusive against the system. It has misled tribunals already, and as the Deputy-Chairman said, and I think everything that has been said by the Minister of National Service shows the wisdom of his view, the only way to deal fairly with the matter under the present system is to treat every man passed in Grade 1 who is over forty-one as a man who is fit only for Grade 2. That is the only practical system under which the present system can be made workable at all.

I read with great pain the observations which the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to make about tribunals the other day. [Interruption.] I think I am speaking not only for myself, but for all who have been working for the Army, as my right hon. Friend is, to get the best Army we can, but not to cause unnecessary hardship in cramming men into the Army. I am sure we all have a personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman. We all recognise that he is doing very great work as the head of the Department, but he must not be too sensitive to criticism, which is promoted by a desire only that the Department of which he is the head shall be worked with greater satisfaction to the public than it has been in the past. With that sincere desire I commend the observations I have made, and those which have been made by others who have spoken before me, to his most serious consideration.

Mr. SMALLWOOD

I think all who have heard the Debate so far will have come to the conclusion that there is but one voice, and that is fair play for these older men. Those of us who have had experience know perfectly well that they have not had fair play, and were not going to have fair play unless it had been raised in this House. The Minister for National Service has put before us a plan which, so far as we can understand it, should work perfectly well, but it is such a fine plan that it is bound to break down when it comes to be worked. It is like a fine machine which cannot work if the merest speck of dust gets into it. We have been told that although these older men are put in Grade 1, when they pass out of the hands of the Minister of National Service into those of the military they will do with them as they have done with others. I want to show what has happened in respect of men younger than these. I have tried for some time to show what has happened in respect of certain men who have been sent into the Army and how they have been dealt with when they have been put there. Here is a case about which I wrote to the Under-Secretary for War three or four months ago. He was an epileptic when he was taken into the Army. I tried to get him out, but was not able to do so. Only a fortnight ago that man was found dead in his bed, in his own tent, not having had any medical attention. This is the history of the case. He enlisted in May, 1915, and was sent to France the following October. In that same month he was in hospital at Rouen. In December he was put to light duties.

Sir C. HENRY

Is not the hon. Member referring to matters which concern the War Office, and do not come under the purview of the Ministry of National Service?

The CHAIRMAN

Certainly that last remark, as far as I caught it, was wholly military administration. The hon. Member will no doubt be careful only to bring up matters which are under the control of the Ministry of National Service. There will, no doubt, be a later opportunity of dealing with matters controlled by the Army Council.

Mr. SMALLWOOD

I was trying to show that, as we were told this afternoon, men pass out of the hands of the Ministry of National Service into the hands of the military, and it is only by the experience of the past that we may see what has happened to them. It is because of that that I am mentioning this and one or two other cases. In September, 1916, the man was again in hospital at Rouen, and I have a certificate showing that he was suffering from epilepsy. He was sent to England and was put into hospital. In December, 1916, he was at a convalescent home at Seaford. On 9th June, 1917, he was again sent to France on active service. His mother wrote stating that he was far from well. In January and February, 1918, he was in the trenches in France again. He had several attacks of epilepsy there. In March, 1918, he was in the University Hospital at Southampton, wounded. On 3rd April his parents were wired for owing to epileptic fits. He was subsequently discharged from the University War Hospital and had to rejoin his battalion on 29th April. On 16th May he was found dead in bed at Wimbledon Common Camp from an attack of the same nature. I have another case, brought right up to date, of a man who has been sent out to France again during this last week. He arrived in France in 1916. He was not a strong man by any means and ought not to have been in the Army. He was in hospital from 5th November to 8th December and then again from 5th January, 1916, to 17th February. In 1917 again he was in hospital.

Sir F. BANBURY

How can it be in order to deal with something which arose in 1916, before the National Service Ministry was in existence.

The CHAIRMAN

I understand the hon. Member's point was what might happen to a person who had been put in Grade 1. He is entitled to give a single illustration of that, but not to labour it, because, after all, that is a matter which can properly be brought up on the Army Estimates.

Mr. SMALLWOOD

Then I will save any such cases that I have until that time, I have not yet been able to find out why there was a need for these older men to be rushed in in such quantities. We were told by the Leader of the House not many days ago that the Americans were coming in day by day. He said the stream of men started as a small stream and then broadened to a river, and we have been told that they are now coming over by hundreds of thousands. These older men will take, at any rate, from four to six months to be trained. They cannot be of very much use until the end of the year, and it seems to us, when we have a large reservoir of men to draw from, as we have at present, that these older men are not needed to anything like the extent we are told. I am sorry I have been unable to give the cases I wished to mention, but I must bring them up on some future occasion.

Colonel ASHLEY

I wish to direct the attention of the Under-Secretary to two or three instances where the Ministry, as far as my information goes, has distinctly and deliberately broken pledges given to ex-Service men during the last nine or six months, which is causing, and will cause, still further dissatisfaction among ex-Service men. The Minister for National Service, on 10th April, said, with reference to the rights of discharged men, We do not intend to qualify in any way the pledges and the arrangements which now govern the position of these men. The next day he amplified it, and said: I said we seek no legal power to touch these men. We do not in fact seek to touch these men, who have deserved well of their country. That being so, I take it that the privilege given to these men is amply secured on the word of the Minister for National Service, because these are matters, though perhaps he does not know it, which are very deeply resented by the ex-Service men who are affected. An organisation of ex-Service men of which I am a member, among other communications from the Ministry, received a letter dated 20th June of this year, a very courteous letter. I am not in the least complaining of its tone. It laid down three propositions which are distinct violations of the pledges given by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to ex-Service men. The first thing he says is that men who have served overseas in the present or in previous campaigns and who were discharged time-expired and have since offered themselves for enlistment and been rejected are not within the exceptions to the Act and are liable for service under the Act. That is absolutely going back upon the pledges given by the Ministry of National Service who say that a man who has served overseas in this or in any previous war who has been discharged as time-expired and who has come up again during this War and been rejected as a man not fit, is not liable for any further examination. Cases have occurred in which men have been called up and been subject to second examination. I need not labour the point because the right hon. Gentleman guaranteed all our rights and privileges on the 10th of April, and in October, 1917, the Ministry of National Service agreed that this concession as to being excepted under the Act should also apply to men discharged time-expired after service overseas in present or any previous war if, subsequent to discharge, they had offered themselves and been rejected. In a letter on the 8th of April they confirmed that concession and suggested that we should include in our leaflet, under the heading "men not liable at all," all men who having been discharged on the termination of their period of service after service overseas in this or any war, were afterwards rejected or again discharged on the ground of ill-health. There is not the slightest doubt that cases are happening in contravention of the pledge given by the Minister of National Service. The letter, to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, goes on to say: Under instructions about to be issued it is proposed that all men within paragraph 4B of the First Schedule to the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, should be allowed the period of twelve months from the date of their discharge, or until the 1st August, 1918, whichever is the later, in which to find work of national importance. It is rather difficult to construe the meaning of that sentence. It can be taken two ways. If it means that every man who is discharged shall have twelve months from the date of his discharge as a minimum to get work of national importance, that is all right.

Mr. BECK

indicated assent.

Colonel ASHLEY

Then I would ask the Under-Secretary, who agrees with me, if he will take steps to deal with the numerous cases in which this rule is being constantly broken and men are being called up within two or three months after their discharge. I will give a few cases. Here is a ease of a man who is discharged as medically unfit with a pension, six months ago, recalled for re-examination and placed in Grade 3. That is absolutely against the rule.