HC Deb 22 June 1921 vol 143 cc1361-2
67. Sir M. DOCKRELL

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can have extended to the Royal Army Medical Corps and Indian medical ser vices the recent orders, General Routine Orders No. 24, of 10th January, 1921, and No. 437, of 4th May, 1921, permitting officers other than those of the Royal Army Medical Corps and Indian medical services who have completed their time in Mesopotamia, and are due to serve a further period in India, such leave as they may be entitled to under existing leave rules before proceeding to India?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The question of the grant of leave to the officers referred to is a matter for the local military authorities. Officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps, whose tour of foreign service is five years, serve two years in Mesopotamia and three years in India, and this procedure could not be carried out if officers were granted leave on the expiration of their period of service in Mesopotamia before transfer to India.

Sir M. DOCKRELL

Why is there any differentiation between these medical officers and the ordinary combatant officers, and if they are to be sent after two years in the frying pan of Mesopotamia to the fire of India for three more years, does he not think they want cooling down, and will he send them to the hills for three or four months.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY

The question of difference between medical and combatant officers has always been the same, that medical officers go for a certain tour of duty abroad. As to the second part of the question, I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer I have already given.

Sir M. DOCKRELL

I am pleading with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he is sending them for three years to India he would allow them to be posted for three or four months in hill country to give them a chance of getting their sea legs again.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman had better put that question on the Paper.