Home Guard. (Hansard, 22 July 1942)

§ 34. Sir John Mellor
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the successful contention of the Crown in the Scottish courts that a Home Guard officer is not a common soldier for the purpose of total exemption of his estate from duty under the Act of 1894, he will take steps to rescind the rule which limits pensions payable in respect of Home Guard officers to the scale applicable to private soldiers?

§ Sir W. Womersley
As I promised in my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 14th May, I have consulted the other Departments concerned and we are unable to recommend any change in the present general pension arrangements for members of the Home Guard.

§ Sir J. Mellor
How can the Government decently treat Home Guard officers as private soldiers for purposes of pension, and at the same time deny that they are private soldiers for purposes of Estate Duty?

§ Sir W. Womersley
All I can tell the hon. Member is that I consulted the Departments concerned, and even after this decision of the courts in Scotland had been made known they were not prepared to alter the decision at all.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Why should Home Guard officers lose both ways?

§ 41. Mr. Bossom
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will set up a committee composed of experienced Home Guard officers of each grade from platoon to zone commander for the purpose of making recommendations to consolidate, simplify and reduce the increasing quantity of paper work, which is now taking up so much of the limited time available for training?

§ The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys)
No, Sir. The staff of the War Office are constantly in touch with Home Guard officers of all grades, with the specific object of cutting down paper work in the Home Guard.

§ Mr. Bossom
Is my hon. Friend aware that possibly half the time of Home Guard officers to-day is taken up with this paper work, particularly in connection with the ½d. a mile allowance for bicycles? Cannot the system be revised? It is awfully wasteful.

§ Major Petherick
Would my hon. Friend take into account the appalling amount of paper in use, not only in the Home Guard, but also in the Regular Army? Would he also bear in mind that this encourages the Babu type of officer, and not the man with initiative?

§ Mr. Sandys
I am fully aware of the desirability of trying to reduce the amount of paper work in the Home Guard, and I am doing all I can in this direction but I do not think the setting-up of another committee would achieve that purpose.

§ 42. Mr. Bossom
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will revise the regulation affecting the insurance of motor-cars with a "G" licence, used exclusively for Home Guard activities, so that the licence will insure the motor-car, driver and passengers from the time of leaving to the time of returning to its garage, in place of the present arrangement of only providing insurance cover after the Home Guardsman has reached his place of duty.

§ Mr. Sandys
The owner of a "G" licensed vehicle is indemnified against damage caused to the vehicle and to all third parties other than unofficial passengers during any authorised use. This includes journeys between the garage and his place of duty. As was explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother-ham (Mr. Dobbie) on 7th July, disablement allowances are paid to incapacitated members of the Home Guard if their disablement is attributable to their Home Guard service. An injury received by a man on his way to or from duty is not held to be attributable to his service except in special circumstances.

§ Mr. Bossom
Can I infer from my hon. Friend's answer that a Home Guard car is insured from the time of leaving its garage to its return, provided it is going on Home Guard duty?

§ Mr. Sandys
I am afraid it is not nearly so simple as that. I have spoken to my hon. Friend, and have explained to him that this matter raises various difficult points of law and principle, which are being examined by the Departments concerned.

§ 62. Sir J. Mellor
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision of the Scottish court that a Home Guard officer is not a common soldier for the purpose - of total exemption of his estate from duty under the Act of 1894, the Government propose to rely on this interpretation as applicable also in English cases?

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank)
The decision of the Court of Session at Edinburgh to which my hon. Friend refers confirms the view of the Board of Inland Revenue which governed their practice in England as well as in Scotland that a member of the Home Guard is not within the exemption from Estate Duty in favour of the common soldier contained in Section 8(1) of the Finance Act. 1894. As explained in my right hon. Friend's reply of 16th July to the Question by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), [Official Report, 16th. July, 1942; column 1342], the Home Guard who is killed on duty or dies as a result of wounds received or disease contracted on duty is entitled to the same relief from Estate Duty as is given to all members of the Forces by Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1924. And, as was pointed out in the judgment, this relief had been given by the Inland Revenue authorities in the case which came before the Court of Session.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Has not the Inland Revenue put the Minister of Pensions in a most invidious position, and will not my right hon. and gallant Friend do anything to rescue him from that position?

§ Captain Crookshank
It is the first I have heard of the Minister of Pensions being in an awkward position.