§ 42. Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War what construction is being put on the words, "who have borne the main burden of battle in the fighting line," for the purpose of qualifying for the home leave scheme, announced by the Prime Minister on 17th November.
§ Sir J. GriggThe primary object of the scheme was the encouragement of the fighting man. Indeed before I put the scheme forward at all I considered very carefully whether in view of the fact that only a limited number of places could be created it ought not to be confined to troops in contact with the enemy. This, however, would have meant that some theatres would be cut out of the scheme altogether and I came to the conclusion that this could not be sustained, particularly as after five years of war, the base and lines of communication units tend to contain a higher proportion of men with long service overseas than the infantry. Moreover, I am very conscious that separation from home bears hardly upon those who are not actually in the front line as well as upon the fighting men. Quotas were therefore allotted to all the theatres concerned. As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 28th November, Commanders-in-Chief were advised to have regard to service in contact with the enemy and length of service overseas but, subject to this, full discretion was left to Commanders-in-Chief.
§ Mr. HoggMy right hon. Friend said the other day that he would consider letting the House know on what principles the different commanders in different theatres were using their discretion. Has he been able to take that matter further?
§ Sir J. GriggI have not got the details from the more distant theatres yet. I understand that, in Italy, for the first convoy, the men chosen have in fact all come from troops in contact with the enemy. In the Middle East, they are chosen by ballot among people of between three and four years' service overseas, but I will supplement that later on, if I may.
§ Mr. WoodburnWould the right hon. Gentleman explain why publicity was given to the case of a man coming home who has been much less than three years abroad, as this has caused grave irritation among wives whose husbands have been away for much longer periods?
§ Sir J. GriggI know that, and it was explained in the Prime Minister's original announcement that a system of leave primarily designed to encourage the men who are actually fighting, and a system of repatriation after long service overseas not confined to fighting men, do create certain inequalities of that sort. The only alternative would be to have no leave scheme at all.
§ Mr. R. J. TaylorWill the right hon. Gentleman place on record the importance of being careful in regard to the dates of the men going overseas, as in case of mistake great disappointment is felt by the men?
§ Sir J. GriggI have not heard that there have been mistakes of that sort, but I will certainly go into the matter.
§ Captain CobbIs the Minister aware that the discretion given to commanding officers resulted in Burma in men of the Royal Corps of Signals having their leave postponed, and in view of the great disappointment caused, can he tell us whether any steps can be taken in the near future to give leave to those men who have been overseas on active service for many years?
§ Sir J. GriggThere is a Question later on the Paper by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and I am giving a full answer to it.