§ 11. Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Minister of Labour on what principle he bases his decisions to recommend or not recommend remission of periods of service on the Z Reserve; and to what extent those who are judged available for Z Reserve training are likely to be available for military duties in an emergency.
§ Sir W. MoncktonThe general principle is to avoid recalling for training those men who come within certain general categories of employment in which it is virtually certain that they would be reserved from full-time service in an emergency. Where the question would depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case at the time of the emergency, it is not possible to say at this stage that a man would be reserved at some unknown date in the future, but it is proposed to provide machinery for settling such cases nearer to the time. Meanwhile such men are not exempted from training. Accordingly some men now recalled for training may in an emergency be reserved from full-time service, but the numbers would be comparatively small.
§ Mr. HarveyI appreciate the points which my right hon. and learned Friend has made, but does he not agree that the object of the scheme is to train men who will subsequently be available, and that considerable time is spent on training? Therefore, if men who will not be available on the day are called up to key positions, there is waste not only to the Services but also to the men concerned in taking them away from their normal duties?
§ 21. Mr. Anthony Marloweasked the Minister of Labour what machinery exists for Z reservists, who dispute the certification of fitness by a medical board, to appeal to some other medical tribunal; why Mr. G. H. Schaverien, 2, Lincoln Road, Portslade, has been passed as fit contrary to the opinion of high medical authority at the Royal Sussex County Hospital: and why, when he appealed, he was resubmitted to the same board.
§ Sir W. MoncktonThere is no provision for a formal appeal against a medical board's findings, but where an application for the review of a finding is supported by additional medical evidence, it is customary to arrange re-examination.
Having regard to the high standards maintained by medical boards, I see no reason why Mr. Schaverien, or other men who appeal, should not be re-examined by the same boards. I am, however, making inquiries into the medical aspects of this particular case and will write to my hon. and learned Friend as soon as possible. In the meantime, I have arranged with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for the cancellation of the notice requiring Mr. Schaverien to report for training on 3rd May.
§ Mr. MarloweI am grateful for the personal action taken, but does not my right hon. and learned Friend think it unsatisfactory that an appeal should go back to the same board? It is very unlikely that they are going to reverse their original decision and say that they were wrong the first time.
§ Sir W. MoncktonIn the big cities where there are available several boards we follow the course of sending the appeals to a different board. In the case of Brighton, to which this case referred, although the board had the same chairman the other four members of it were entirely different.
§ Mr. MarloweMy right hon. and learned Friend is misinformed. The president and two members were the same as on the subsequent occasion. I hope he will say that he regards that as unsatisfactory.
§ Sir W. MoncktonPerhaps my hon. and learned Friend will give me further particulars, because I did give the information which has been supplied to me, which he challenges.