§ Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he has now made inquiry into the case of Mr. A. Riley, of 115, Abel Street, Burnley, whose conditional certificate was recently withdrawn by the Burnley Appeal Tribunal, although the conditions upon which exemption was granted have in no way changed; and if he will say whether this man, who is a weaver by trade and whose medical category is C 1, is the sole support of a widowed and invalid mother, aged sixty-five; whether he also supports a crippled brother who, as the result of an injury to his spine, is unable to maintain himself; whether, in consequence of the decision of the tribunal, it will be necessary that the man's home should be broken up and his two relatives placed in 1147W the workhouse: and whether he proposes to take steps to obtain a revision of the case?
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERThe Appeal Tribunal state that they supported the decision of the local tribunal in this case, and gave the man a short period of grace in addition. It appears that there is a brother who has been rejected for the Army, but who was working four days a week, and that there is also a married sister living l½ miles away. The Appeal Tribunal did not anticipate that either the mother or the brother would have to go into the workhouse. The decision in cases of this kind rests with the tribunals, who have the obvious advantage, in deciding on the merits of a case, of having heard it.
§ Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he will give instructions to the clerk of the tribunal at Liverpool that men called up under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act are entitled to lodge a claim for exemption as soon as the notice is received on any of the grounds of the Act, seeing that he is refusing applicants this right on the ground that the appeal cannot be lodged until the re-examination has taken place?
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERI am making inquiry in the matter.
Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to an announcement made by the Worcestershire appeal tribunal to the effect that, in all future applications on the ground of ill-health or in respect of an alleged improper Army medical classification, the appellant's, medical adviser or advisers must attend the tribunal for the purpose of examination and cross-examination; whether he is aware that these instructions are contrary to the practice of the Central Tribunal in such cases and to the procedure laid down in Army Council Instruction 27/5,702 (AG 2b) (R.) (O.) of 15th September, 1916, and circulated to tribunals with Circular R 101; and whether, owing to the hardship involved on the poorer appellants and to the exceptional demands on the medical services due to the conditions arising out of the War making their attendances before tribunals undesirable in the national interests, he will issue instructions to the Worcestershire appeal tribunal asking them to observe the procedure heretofore adopted?
1148W
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERI am making inquiries in the matter.
§ Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Epstein, the sculptor, has been exempted from active military service on the grounds of his importance in the world of art; and, if so, who is responsible for this assertion?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMr. Epstein was refused exemption by the local tribunal. Against this he appealed. He was granted three months exemption by the appeal tribunal. Against this the Military Representative claimed leave to appeal to the central tribunal. Appeal is now pending.