§ 3. Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds an officer commanding a Home Guard zone, when travelling in uniform on duty, is accorded only a third-class railway warrant when his adjutant, a junior officer of the Army, travelling on the same duty and on the same train, is accorded a first-class warrant: why, when in order to save petrol he travels by railway, he is not even allowed to pay the difference out of his own pocket for a first-class fare; and whether he is aware that it is prejudicial to military discipline to permit such an anomalous position between a senior officer and his junior?
§ Captain MargessonAs I stated in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Snadden) on 17th June, it is an accepted principle in the Home Guard that officers and other ranks should be treated alike as regards financial privileges. I do not consider that the present practice whereby officers in the Home Guard are given third-class warrants can seriously be regarded as prejudicial to military discipline. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. So far as I am aware, there is no reason why members of the Home Guard should not make up at their own expense the difference between the third-class fare at military rates and the first-class fare at ordinary public rates, if they so desire.