HL Deb 24 February 1916 vol 21 cc198-202
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name—

  1. 1. What is the position under the Military Service Act of a man who has offered himself for enlistment and has been rejected since the 14th day of August, 1915, in a case in which the man either has not received any document proving the facts, or has not such a document.
  2. 2. Will such a man receive an armlet without any further examination, or will he be required to undergo medical examination; and what is the justification for requiring a further medical examination before issuing an armlet.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY

My Lords, before the noble Lord answers the Question put by the noble Duke I would ask the leave of the House to read a letter which was sent to me a week ago upon the same subject. It is from a gentleman in charge of the books in my own estate office, and will show your Lordships more particularly what has been done. The letter runs— On Wednesday the 24th of November, 1915, I presented myself to the doctor appointed by the military authorities in this district for examination, as a recruit under Lord Derby's scheme, and was rejected as medically unfit. The doctor told me that my name would be sent by him to the authorities in Ayr, and that I would receive a certificate from them stating that I had been rejected, but so far I am without any tangible evidence to that effect. As the time is drawing near when the authorities may choose to call upon me under the new Act feel it my duty to acquaint your Lordship of my position. I called on the doctor to-night (February 16), and he informed me that rejection certificates had been issued in Kirkcudbrightshire and other districts long ago, but none have been received here. He also informed me that my name and address and particulars of grounds of rejection were included in his list and sent to Ayr at the end of November, and again included in his quarterly list sent on December 31 last. On February 21, four days after his first letter, I received a further communication from this gentleman in which he says— The doctor has informed me to-day that the military authorities are now ignoring first rejection entirely. He referred in particular to two cases rejected by him, and in both cases the men have been called up. One man is suffering from chronic tuberculosis, and the other has very defective sight. My Lords, I think that what I have read shows that there must be something wrong in the system which is being carried out. Here is a man who was rejected in the month of November, but up to this moment he has received no armlet or notice from the authorities at Ayr that he will not be called up.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON)

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Derby informed me yesterday that he was anxious to reply to this Question at length, but he is apparently unable to be present this afternoon. I hope, therefore, that the noble Duke opposite will take the answer from me, although it may not be of so full a nature. I think the inquiry which has just been made by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches is entirely covered by the Question which stands in the name of the noble Duke opposite.

There seems to be some misapprehension as to the conditions with regard to these medical certificates, and the difficulty arises from the confusion that apparently exists in people's minds that there is any connection between the medical certificate as providing exemption from the Military Service Act and the granting of an armlet. The two are quite distinct. The Act clearly lays down that where a man has been medically rejected subsequent to August 14 the production of his medical certificate shall secure him exception, but it is obvious that the recruiting officer must be satisfied as to the genuineness of his medical rejection paper. He has to satisfy himself on these points—(1) that the man bringing the paper is the man to whom it was issued; (2) that it was given to him by a doctor duly authorised by the War Office to examine recruits; and (3) that it was issued to him subsequent to August 14. If the applicant can prove these three facts to the satisfaction of the recruiting officer the claim for exception under the Act will be held to be good. On the other hand, if he cannot prove them he will be notified accordingly by the recruiting officer and be required under the Act to substantiate his claim to exception before a Civil Court.

In answer to the second part of the noble Duke's Question, a man who can produce no evidence of having presented himself for enlistment and having been rejected on medical grounds would not receive an armlet. The conditions under which armlets could be obtained by men rejected by a recruiting officer were published in the Press of December 27 last. These conditions are as follows—(a) men who have been rejected on account of organic disease are given an armlet, and their names are registered; (b) men who have been rejected on account of eyesight or some slight physical defect are also given an armlet on condition that they will attest and be passed to the Army Reserve. In both cases if the man can produce Army Form B 2505A or Army Form B 2515A showing date and cause of rejection, or other certificate issued by a doctor duly authorised for the purpose by the War Office, no further examination is necessary; but if the cause of rejection is not stated on the certificate it is necessary to re-examine the man to decide whether he belongs to category (a) or category (b).

After receipt of an armlet men of both descriptions are free to return to their civil occupations, but they will be liable to be called up at any time for medical examination and for immediate service in any occupation for which as soldiers they may be liable and for which they may be considered suitable by the military authorities. There is no obligation on any man to submit to a second medical examination unless he is desirous of obtaining an armlet, but to obtain the armlet he must be medically examined unless his rejection certificate shows the cause of his rejection. In order to obtain an armlet a man must undergo this examination and run the risk, if I may put it in that way, of being thus taken for some kind of service. Now as a matter of fact I believe that there are many men who are quite prepared to give this particular kind of service.

The War Office has had brought to its notice the fact that in some cases the recruiting officer has destroyed the original blue paper. That, of course, is an obviously wrong course, and in cases where it has happened—no doubt under a misapprehension—instructions will be given for a fresh issue of a medical rejection form, and the man's position will he ascertained in the manner I have stated.

I am afraid that the explanation I have given sounds somewhat involved, and may convey an impression that excessive formalities are necessary for men claiming exemption. But I think I can take upon myself to assert that if there are many formalities to be fulfilled in this case, they are fewer than prevail in any other belligerent country.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just sat down will allow me to point out that the ease brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Galloway, is not exactly covered by the Question of the noble Duke. I think we now understand that anybody who wants an armlet must appeal a second time, and it is perfectly reasonable that this condition should be laid down. But that is not the case to which my noble friend on the Cross Benches called attention. His was the case of a man who was told by the medical officer that he would receive a certificate from the military authorities. He was examined by the doctor and rejected, but was never given this certificate. It is no question of coming again and asking for an armlet. And there is the further allegation in the second letter which the noble Earl read that there were other cases of a similar kind in which men had not received the certificates to which the doctor said in his opinion they were entitled. Of course, I fully appreciate the difficulty. Probably the noble Lord knows nothing about the case except what he has just heard from the reading of the letters. But perhaps the noble Earl will hand the papers to him, and he will look into the matter.

LORD NEWTON

I thought it was covered by the Question put down by the noble Duke. But if there is any doubt on the subject and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches will put a Question on the Paper I will obtain an answer.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Did I understand from the noble Lord that in the case to which Lord Beauchamp has just referred the applicant would have to satisfy a Civil Court that he had been already rejected and did not receive a paper? That is what I gathered in the earlier part of the answer.

LORD NEWTON

That applied to the noble Duke's question.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But does my noble friend think that it also applies to Lord Beauchamp's question?

LORD NEWTON

I should be sorry to reply off-hand.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There is a considerable degree of complication, and it is not surprising that other people do not understand when so intelligent a member of your Lordships' House as the noble Lord fails to make it absolutely clear.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Marquess has paid me an undeserved compliment. I am prepared to admit that the circumstances are extremely complicated, and that it requires rather a bright intelligence to understand them.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.