HC Deb 05 July 1955 vol 543 cc923-7
1. Mr. Dodds

asked the Secretary of State for War why 2312670 Private B. F. Cammell, rejected by the Royal Air Force because of having Grade II(a) feet preventing him from being called upon in the Royal Air Force to serve abroad, is being sent by his Department to Japan; how he is now employed; and what consideration has been given to his discharge because of his foot troubles.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)

I have checked up on this case and recent examination shows that his foot trouble is not serious and should not hinder him in his job as a pay clerk at home or abroad.

Mr. Dodds

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this man has Grade II(a) (feet), that he was rejected by the Royal Air Force because of that, and that this grading is the same as the grading of a well-known cricketer who has been rejected by the Royal Air Force and excused National Service altogether? Is this right?

Mr. Head

It is not for me to make comparisons, because that is not part of the Question. All I know is that this man came from the Royal Air Force. Many more men volunteer for the Royal Air Force than are required, and so far as we are concerned—and this is all I am speaking for—he has been re-examined and is perfectly fit for duties as a pay clerk at home or abroad.

Mr. Dodds

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why a man can be rejected by the R.A.F. as unfit to go overseas because of his physical condition and yet the Army will not only take him but will send him overseas? Why this difference?

Mr. Head

I have already told the hon. Member that there are many more men who want to join the R.A.F. than the National Service requirements need. Inevitably many who want to join the R.A.F. are not taken.

Mr. Dodds

Why does not the Army take the cricketer then?

2. Mr. Dodds

asked the Secretary of State for War why 23082491 Gunner F. Thompson is being retained in view of the condition of both feet; what was the date of his call-up; what was his grade when called up; why he is excused all parades and marching; what type of footwear he is called upon to use; and if he is aware that a foot specialist at the Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich, has informed him that an operation would not be successful and advised amputation.

Mr. Head

Gunner Thompson was called up on 4th November, 1954, having been placed in Grade II(a) (feet). He is excused guards, marching and all parades except the morning muster parade because of foot trouble; he wears Service pattern shoes. The specialist at the Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich, recently offered to remove the soldier's right little toe, which was giving some pain, but the offer was refused. Gunner Thompson is retained in the Army because he is fit to carry out his work as an equipment repairer which does not entail much standing.

Mr. Dodds

Why does the Secretary of State say that this man was accepted as Grade II(a) (feet) when I have his medical card here which says he is Grade III? Will he look into the case again? In view of the pain which this man is suffering, will he not discharge him from the Army? If he will not, where is the fair play in National Service? Win he accept these photographs of this man's feet, which show that he is totally unfitted to serve under National Service in the Army when others are going scot-free?

Mr. Head

This case has been investigated by an expert and I must judge by his report. Whether or not the hon. Member knows better, I cannot tell. All I can say is that the man came in Grade II(a) (feet) but since then, because of this little toe trouble—the little toe which he did not wish to have amputated—he has been regraded one grade lower.

Mr. Dodds

I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

3. Mr. F. Noel-Baker

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for a home posting for Barry Pearce, of 13, Upham Road, Swindon, in view of the family circumstances to which his attention has been drawn.

Mr. Head

Mr. Barry Pearce has not yet been called up, and it is not therefore certain whether he will even serve in the Army.

Mr. Noel-Baker

As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department has already taken some interest in the matter, will he at least be good enough to pass the papers on to the Ministry of Labour and National Service and do what he can to see that this particularly difficult case is sympathetically considered?

Mr. Head

Frankly, I do not think the question of posting can arise until the man goes to a unit. The only interest in him which we have taken so far is to try to find out which of the many Barry Pearce's in the Army the hon. Member had in mind.

13. Mr. Callaghan

asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the Monmouth Agricultural Executive Committee is now backing the appeal of Mr. C. Handford, Sea Bank Farm, Rumney, that he should be excused his Territorial Army training in view of his commitments on his farm, he will reconsider his previous decision.

Mr. Head

I regret that I cannot meet the hon. Member's request. Mr. Handford was excused annual training in 1953 and 1954, and has had a lot of time to arrange for his business to be carried on during his absence.

Mr. Callaghan

Is it not the case that this man is single-handed and has been building up a stock of 1,000 head of poultry and 60 pigs and has a door-to-door sale of eggs?

Mr. Nabarro

Tory agricultural policy.

Mr. Callaghan

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Monmouthshire Agricultural Committee says that he will have to dispose of this business? Does the Secretary of State think it fair to require a young man to give this up to do a fortnight's Territorial training? It is quite clear that the young man cannot make alternative arrangements.

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman made it sound a very strong case, but, in fact, his father and brother farm next door to him. He has a 12-acre farm. It is true that the Monmouthshire Agricultural Committee put up the case last year, but I understand that it has not done so this year.

Mr. Callaghan

It has.

Mr. Head

I am informed that it has not. The Ministry of Agriculture has been approached, and I understand that it does not support this recommendation.

Mr. Callaghan

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to a letter from the National Farmers' Union, a copy of which I have in my hand, dated 28th April and supporting this application—a letter which should have reached him by now? Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman has not checked these facts, for the man's father is ill and cannot work—and that, too, is in the papers which he has in front of him. Does he not know that the brother is wholly engaged in working the father's farm because the latter cannot work? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated all these facts adequately, as is shown by his answer, will he please reconsider the matter?

Mr. Head

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was wrong. The Monmouthshire Agricultural Committee has never handled this case or had anything to do with it. At least I know more about it than does the hon. Gentleman. It was handled by the Glamorgan Agricultural Committee in each case.

Mr. Callaghan

By both.

Mr. Head

That body has not considered the case this year, nor has it approached the hon. Gentleman, as I am informed—and he may correct me if I am wrong. The Ministry of Agriculture does not support the application. I have stated the facts, which I have taken the trouble to find out.