§ 38. Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers have been informed that their services are no longer required on the ground that they 169 are over 41 years of age; and whether any alternative employment has been offered to these men?
§ Captain MargessonNo officers have been informed that their services are no longer required on the ground that they are over 41. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
§ Mr. MaxtonSurely the War Office has issued a circular to the various commands warning officers of 41 or over that their services are to be dispensed with?
§ Captain MargessonNo officer has been informed that his services are no longer required on the ground that he is over 41.
§ Mr. WoodburnGreat indignation is felt by physically fit men who won distinction in the last war and who have been discharged simply on the ground that they are 42 or 43 years of age. I have put a case before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I hope he will look into it.
§ Mr. MaxtonIf a man over 41 is physically unfit for a particular job, will he be discharged from the Army?
§ Captain MargessonNot at all. A man who is unfit for a particular job might be fit for something else.
§ Mr. MaxtonI am thinking of a general circular which has been issued. An officer, Colonel Elliot, wrote to the "Times" about it.
§ Captain MargessonThere is no circular saying that a man has to go at 41.
40. Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances serving officers of field rank are retained on the active list for duty with their regiments when over 60 years of age; and whether this practice is to be discontinued forthwith?
§ Captain MargessonAs regards the first part of the Question, only in exceptional circumstances are officers retained in active employment beyond the age limits laid down for their respective ranks in Article 522 of the Royal Warrant. So far as field officers are concerned, the age for a lieutenant-colonel is 55 years. Exceptional circumstances are only held to exist when there is difficulty in replacing an officer who has reached these age limits. No change in the present practice is contemplated. So far as majors are 170 concerned, they may be retained in employment up to the age of 55 provided that they are in every way suitable, but will not be retained beyond that age unless their retention is especially sanctioned by the Army Council.
41. Colonel Evansasked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been any alteration made in the age at which officers are eligible to command units of the Field Army; whether a reduction in the age of officers eligible to hold senior staff and administrative appointments under the rank of lieutenant-general is also contemplated; and whether opportunities will be given to officers in the early forties, who are to be relieved of their present commands, to fill these senior staff and administrative appointments provided they are fitted to do so as a result of their experience and satisfactory service in the present war although not physically fit for active service in the field?
§ Captain MargessonThe answer to the first two parts of the Question is "No, Sir." As regards the last part, every effort is made to find suitable re-employment for officers who for any reason other than indiscipline are removed from field force commands or staff appointments. My hon. and gallant Friend will, however, appreciate that physical fitness is as essential for staff officers of field formations, whatever their rank, as it is for regimental officers.
§ Sir Francis FremantleAre steps taken when officers are discharged as no longer useful in the service to pass them on to the Ministries of Labour and National Service for the use of their experience and ability in other spheres of the war effort?
§ Captain MargessonWe always do our best.