§ 24. Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private A. E. Stowe, No. 1691, A Company, 16th Army Corps, Cyclist Battalion, Salonika Force, who served in Gallipoli, has only once had leave though he joined the Army on 3rd September, 1914; whether he is now in Constantinople; and when he may expect his discharge?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIf Private Stowe's length of service is as stated by my hon. Friend he is eligible for demobilisation, unless he is serving under pre-war conditions and his term of Colour service is not completed. If he is eligible he will no doubt be released as soon as circumstances permit.
§ 25. Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War why Sapper G. Bawn, No. 286578, Meteorological Section, A.F.O.4, B.A.F., Calais, a teacher formerly employed by and applied for by the Gloucester Education Committee, is 2883 not discharged; whether, and why, his commanding officer has informed him he will be retained under Army Order XIV. (55) of 1919; whether the Gloucester Education Committee sent a guarantee of employment slip on his behalf; if no release slip was sent by the Ministry of Labour (Appointments Branch) on Army Form Z 16; what necessity there is for the retention of the Meterological Section of the Royal Engineers in addition to the Meteorological Section of the Air Ministry, and will he now secure the discharge of Sapper G. Bawn?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLSapper Bawn is not registered by the War Office either as pivotal or for special release, and I am also informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that he is not so registered by his Department. The "employment slip" referred to by my hon. Friend is probably a contract offer of employment, or such as to obtain his registration as a "slip man," which does not entitle him to immediate demobilisation, but gives him a certain priority if otherwise eligible for demobilisation. If this soldier is eligible under existing regulations he will, no doubt, be released as soon as circumstances permit. As regards the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, the meteorological requirements of the Army are very different from those of the Royal Air Force: the former wants information mainly about the flight of projectiles and the latter about upper-air currents. The amalgamation of two sets of meteorologists whose functions are so distinct would therefore serve no useful purpose.