HC Deb 16 February 1954 vol 523 cc1797-9
22. Mrs. Braddock

asked the Secretary of State for War why 22288898 Private Michael Brennanwas not issued with a railway warrant, and was allowed to proceed to Eire in uniform on his discharge from the Army on 12th January, 1954.

Mr. Head

A man discharged in the circumstances of which the hon. Member is aware does not get a railway warrant. Since on discharge he had not got any civilian clothing and was not entitled to an issue, he was allowed to keep a suit of battledress from which all Army insignia had been removed.

Mrs. Braddock

Is the Minister aware that this man was left in the Queen's uniform and had to travel from the barracks in Northwich to Liverpool, from Liverpool to Belfast, and to cross the Border from Belfast to Dublin in the Queen's uniform when he had been discharged from the Army? Under what circumstances does that happen? Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an inquiry into the whole of the matters affecting this man's service? He seems to have been put to the trouble of suffering so many indignities that it has made him completely hostile to the British Army.

Mr. Head

No, Sir. I have been into this matter. The man was discharged with ignominy. That being so, he was not entitled to a suit of plain clothes. When he was discharged he had £10 given to him as pay, and his unit gave him a suit of battledress. He said that when he got his pay he would buy a suit and return the battledress for which he would then have received £1 12s. He did not do this and he went off on his own initiative. I do not see what else the authorities could have done.

Mrs. Braddock

Is it the usual thing to leave a man, who is discharged in that sort of way from the Army, in the Queen's uniform, to travel about the country? Is there not something wrong with the whole system that allows that sort of thing to happen?

Mr. Head

As I havealready told the hon. Lady, all the badges and insignia were removed. Battledress is used for certain jobs in this country without any insignia that would give any indication of what the man is.

26. Mr. Yates

asked the Secretary of State for War how far it is his practice to receive reports from local medical practitioners in respect of National Service men, in view of the fact that National Service man 22872618 Private Godfrey Rudge was examined by his local medical practitioner and certified to be suffering from active ear disease before Ms entry into the Army; to what medical grade this soldier was reduced after his return from Egypt; and why, in view of the fact that it is considered necessary for him to undergo an operation, he refuses to consider theadvisability of releasing him from Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Head

Careful consideration is given to all reports from local medical practitioners, but there is no record of any such report to the War Office in this case. Private Rudge, after his return from Egypt, was, on 17th December, 1953, considered fit for service in base and communication areas in temperate climates. While an operation is advisable, he does not want it. He is still fit for service without it.

Mr. Yates

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that had the War Office consulted the local medical practitioner it would have known that this man was certified—I have the certificate here—to be suffering from an active ear disease before he entered the Army, and he would not have been sent to Egypt and then invalided back? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the parents of this boy refused to agree to an operation and is he also aware that they had had six sons, two of whom had been killed, and that they were naturally very anxious about this boy? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in those circumstances, reconsider the matter, especially in view of the fact that the man is not doing anything at all except running about doing errands?

Mr. Head

We cannot consult every medical practitioner, but we encourage men who have trouble to bring a medical certificate at their examination. This man was passed fit for these duties in temperate climates and it is his duty to serve. Whether he has an operation is his own affair, but he will not be made to have one if he does not want one.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

34. Mr. Langford-Holt:To ask the Secretary of State for War why Christmas parcels sent by Mrs. W. Rowson, of 2 Meadow Terrace, Crewe Street, Shrewsbury, to her son 22748488 Trooper Rowson, B. Squadron, M.T. Troop, 1st Royal Tank Regiment, B.A.P.O. 3, serving in Korea, have not yet been received.

Mr. Head

I am looking into this case and will write to my hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we know to what Question that answer referred?

Mr. Speaker

I presume it was the answer to Question 34, but that Question was not asked.