§ 67. Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War how far Army Order 55, of 1919, as to the classes of soldiers entitled to demobilisation affects coal miners; whether the promise that coal miners should be demobilised stands; and, if not, can he state the reasons?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is provided by Army Council Instruction 69 of the 30th January, 1919, which must be read in conjunction with Army Order 55 of 1919, that a large percentage of each dispersal draft will be composed of coal miners (Group 3) and agriculturists (Group 1), preference being given to coal miners so long as any are available. This procedure is subject of course to the officer or man in question being eligible for demobilisation under Army Order 55. One hundred and ninety-five thousand miners have already been demobilised, and as far as I am aware the number remaining in the Army is very small. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the instructions referred to. The reasons which have led to this exceptional advantage being given to coal miners over all the rest of the Army was to enable them to get the industries of the country restarted in time to make employment for their comrades at the front.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs it not the fact that on the 13th January the Government caused public notices to be issued that the coal miners and certain other classes need do nothing to secure their release as their release had already been ordered, and that they were being included in the dispersal drafts as quickly as possible?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThat is true, and as the result, 195,000 coal miners have been released.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs it not the fact that many coal miners relying upon that promise did nothing, as they were instructed to do, and that they now find they are not allowed to leave the Army?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, Sir. The Order to comb out coal miners still continues in full force, but no class who have served in the Army have been treated with more special consideration.
An HON. MEMBERIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that young miners who enlisted voluntarily in 1914 are still retained in the Army, while miners who enlisted in 1916 have returned to their homes, and will he pay attention to the release of those miners who voluntarily enlisted in 1914?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am very doubtful whether that is the case. It may be so in some exceptional cases, because out of millions of cases there must be every kind of exception, but that is not due to any rule or principle which we are observing or enforcing.