§ Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the men in the Post Office service, almost without exception, attested under the Derby scheme; whether he is aware that generally they were released according to age and medical category; whether those who enlisted after January, 1916, were either important to the Post Office service, of the higher ages, or in poor health; and whether, in view of the discontent which exists, he will release the Derby men in accordance with the terms of their enlistment?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe release of Post Office employés is governed by the same Regulations as those governing the release of other men,i.e., they must be eligible 1850W under current Instructions. If they were certified by the Postmaster General as "pivotal" or "civil demobilisers," and registered as such by the War Office prior to the 1st February, 1919, or are otherwise eligible under the Regulations, they are being released as rapidly as the exigencies of the Service permit. I regret, therefore that I can authorise no departure from this procedure at present. I would at the same time refer my hon. Friend to what I said in my speech on the Army Estimates on the 29th May regarding the Derby men, when I explained that it is hoped, as soon as conditions permit, to begin to release them in order according to the month in. which they joined up.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for War whether many men who volunteered in 1914–15, and who have been through the Palestine and other campaigns, and in India and Syria, are not yet demobilised, while many who did not volunteer, but came under the terms of the Military Service Acts in 1916 and afterwards, have been demobilised; whether he will issue instructions that no man will be demobilsed of the latter description until the whole of the 1914–15 men have been demobilised; and whether he will preferably call up new recruits so as to enable the long-service men to get their discharge?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLMen who enlisted in and 1915 and who are serving in the East are being brought home as rapidly as possible. They are given a certain priority over other men who are eligible under Army Order 55, but as I have often pointed out to this House it would be inadvisable to release the whole of the men of one class to the exclusion of men in other classes. I therefore regret that I cannot issue the instructions suggested by my hon. Friend. With regard to the last part of the question, the men to whom he refers are being replaced as rapidly as possible by men who are not eligible for demobilisation. On this subject I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement in the House on the Army Estimates on Thursday last, when I explained that we shall endeavour by every means in our power, if peace is signed this month, to send home at the end of June for release all men, except those in India, who joined in 1914, and by the end of July all the men, except those in India.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War if he will 1851W explain why Driver J. W. Niklas, No. 310801, Royal Engineers, No. 1 Area, Signal Company, Headquarters, France, is still being retained in the Army, as he enlisted voluntarily in December, 1915, has a one-man business, and has made repeated applications for release; and whether a man employed in a signal company is required for the machinery of demobilisation?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLInquiries are already being made in this case, and I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result as early as possible. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. Demobilisation could not be carried out without the signal service, the strain upon which has been heavy.
Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War what is the reason why no prospects of demobilisation are held out to Private R. Bownas, No. 121994, Army Service Corps, motorcycle orderly, Base Headquarters, Boulogne, France, seeing that he enlisted in September, 1915?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLPrivate Bownas is is not registered by the War Office either as pivotal or for special release. If he joined the Colours for continuous service prior to 1st January, 1916, he is eligible for demobilisation, unless he is serving under pre-war conditions of service and his term of Colour service is not completed. If he is eligible he will be released as soon as the exigencies of the Service permit. Personnel of the Royal Army Service Corps, though eligible for demobilisation, are liable to be temporarily retained until their services can be spared or they can be replaced. Men so retained are being replaced as rapidly as possible by men who are not eligible for demobilisation. Senior officers have been appointed to inspect registers of units with a view to ensuring that no officer or man who is eligible for demobilisation is being retained without good and sufficient cause.
§ Dr. EDWARD HOPKINSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether Private D. Baldwin, No. 92735, 1st Company, 3rd Reserve Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers, No. 12 Durrington Camp, Salisbury Plain, has been refused release from the Army, notwithstanding that both his parents are almost seventy years of age, that his father is blind, that his mother is at present in bed sick, and that he is 1852W his parents sole support; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider the justice of treating the case as sufficiently compassionate to entitle this soldier to release?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLInquiries are already being made in this case, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as early as possible.