MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he can explain the intentions of the War Office with regard to the Army Motor Reserve; whether, although they have been maintained on a contingent allowance of £700 and made use of freely during manœuvres, staff rides, etc., they have now been told that they will not be required on mobilisation; and (2) on what date was the Army Motor Reserve informed that it would not be required on mobilisation; was it due to the knowledge of this fact that the War Office has not gazetted officers from a date early in this year; why was the Army Motor Reserve not given an explanation for the delay in appointing officers, although use was made of the corps in the intervening period; what are the intentions with regard to the seventy-nine officers now in the corps; and whether he will say how such treatment is likely to assist universal service by consent?
§ Colonel SEELYAs regards this and the next question, the Army Motor Reserve has not been informed that it will not be required on mobilisation. It has been informed that it will not be required for the Expeditionary Force. The reason for this decision is that there is such a large variety of types of car. In making out a recent allotment it was found that out of seventy-two cars offered no less than forty-two were of different makes. The provision of spare parts and other obvious difficulties arising from this great variety render such an organisation wholly unsuited for an Expeditionary Force. On the other hand, this Reserve will be of great value for home defence.
1514W
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the officers of the Army Motor Reserve have hitherto been counted in the states of combatant officers rendered to the House of Commons, when there was no intention of making use of their services on mobilisation?
§ Colonel SEELYThe answer is in the negative.