26
asked the Minister of Labour the correct procedure to be followed by young men due for National Service who are ill and under the care of a general practitioner on the date of their call-up.
If a man is sick, or has met with an accident so that he will be unable to travel on the day on which he is due to report for service, a medical certificate should be sent by post immediately to the officer commanding the unit described on the enlistment notice. The procedure is set out on the reverse of the enlistment notice, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when that procedure was followed by a constituent of mine, details of whom have been supplied to the Secretary of State for War, the only result was that the certificate was ignored and the police took the young man into custody?
I am responsible only up to the issue of the enlistment notice. All I know of the case to which the hon. Lady referred is that, instead of the certificate being sent to the officer commanding the unit, I understand that it was taken to the police station, with distressing results.
That was the second medical certificate, the first having been ignored. Is the Minister aware that I put this Question down for answer by the Secretary of State for War, who disowned it and passed it on to the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
I have done my best.
31
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of National Service men who were medically rejected after being called up; and the number of those medically rejected when called up after being deferred, for 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952 and the first half of 1953. respectively.
The number of men medically rejected in 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952 was as stated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 1st December, 1953. The number of medical rejections for the first half of 1953 was 18,743.
In answer to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his similar Question on 23rd March, 1954.Is the Minister aware that the figure given to me, which, if I remember rightly, was 75,000, was a conjecture by his Parliamentary Secretary, not a firm figure. It is because of that, and the remark which the hon. Member made that I could not count and that I should go to his Ministry for the figures, although he had to admit on that occasion that his figure was wrong, that I ask whether it is possible to get the numbers of those rejected after deferment, which will indicate whether what I asserted— that 100,000 escaped—was correct or otherwise.
There are two difficulties about giving an answer to that in figures. The number of people rejected when called up after deferment is one thing, and the number of people deferred who come into service three or five years later needs to be taken into account before one can say what number purport to escape. I should like, if the hon. Member will co-operate, to see him myself with my officers and show him the figures, so that he can see whether he is satisfied or whether he would prefer to put down another Question.
I will do that, and I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his offer.