§ 58. Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether special effort can be made to give immediate discharge to Private J. Davis, No. 240695, T Section, 1/5th Gloucestershire Regiment, British Expeditionary Force, France, a blacksmith, who joined up in 1914; whether the Gloucestershire Labour Committee have made every effort to get him back as his work is badly needed for agricultural purposes; whether his father has 2005 since died, and a boy of twenty is left to deal with a large shoeing business, over 100 horses being in need of attention as well as agricultural implements; and can he expedite this man's release?
Captain GUESTIf Private Davis's service is as stated he is eligible for release, unless he is serving under pre-war conditions, and his term of Colour service is not completed. He is not registered either as pivotal or for special release, nor is there any trace of any application regarding him having been received by the War Office. I am also informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that this man is not registered by his Department as pivotal or for special release. If my hon. Friend will obtain a statement giving full facts vouched for by himself, a clergyman, justice of the peace, or a doctor, the case will be considered. The statement should include full particulars as to Private Davis's dependants.
§ 68. Mr. HOPKINSasked the Secretary of State for War why it is that Private A. Still, No. 142,556, of the 133rd Labour Company, is not demobilised, although he is forty-three years of age; and is he aware that 80 men out of 150 in this company are over thirty-seven years old and that many younger men have been released from this company?
§ The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill)If Private Still's age is as stated by my hon. Friend he is eligible for demobilisation, and will be demobilised as soon as circumstances permit. With regard to the second part of the question, in making up dispersal drafts a certain order of priority is followed, and each draft includes as far as possible a proportion of men of all classes as laid down in the order of priority. It is unavoidable that some men who are younger or may have had shorter service should also have been demobilised, but it would be unfair, and also inadvisable from the point of view of industrial requirements, to demobilise the whole of the men in one class, to the exclusion of men in other classes.
§ Mr. INSKIPCan the right hon. Gentleman say who is the judge in cases of this sort as to when circumstances permit?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI should like to define that with proper accuracy. I 2006 should not like to say off-hand that this or that authority are the judges. The military officers are, as a rule, the judges, But if my hon. Friend will give me notice I will supply an exact answer.