§ 4. Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Croydon battalion of the Home Guard were the recipients of a gift of 1,200 pairs of socks from the United States of America, and that permission has been refused for the distribution of those socks amongst the men of the battalion unless they surrender coupons; and whether in view of the circumstances, he will consult with the Board of Trade so that coupons are not exacted from members of the Home Guard?
§ Sir J. GriggI am aware of these facts and am discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
§ 27. Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the arrangement under which officers of the Home Guard are given third class warrants, in view of the fact that certain anti-aircraft batteries contain both Regular and Home Guard officers?
§ Sir J. GriggI am fully conscious that there are certain anomalies about the present position, but, after weighing the matter very carefully, I have reached the conclusion that the decision arrived at by my predecessor ought to be maintained.
§ Sir A. KnoxWill my right hon. Friend consider a case of this sort—the major commanding one of these batteries is a Home Guard officer, he is detailed to attend a course some distance from his home, and he is given a third-class warrant, whereas Regulars in the same battery and going to the same course are given first class warrants? Is this fair, and does it make for discipline?
§ Sir J. GriggMy hon. and gallant Friend asks whether I will consider cases of that sort. I have had cases of that sort brought to my notice—and they were a material element in the consideration—by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore).
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas MooreDoes not my right hon. Friend consider that this discrimination tends to lower the respect in which Home Guard officers should be held by Regular troops whom one day they may have to command?
§ Sir J. GriggI know that my hon. and gallant Friend considers that, but I am afraid I do not agree with him.
§ 31. Colonel Colvilleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that owing to the ceiling a number of Home Guard battalions are below the strength which their military commanders consider necessary for their operational duties; that owing to the improvement of the arms position more men could now be trained and given an operational role; and, as with the possibility of further military commitments for the field forces the defence of the country devolves more on the Home Guard, will he authorise an increase in the total Home Guard ceiling so that more able-bodied men may have the opportunity of defending their country?
§ Sir J. GriggThe strength of Home Guard formations is determined by their operational duties. The equipment and training facilities available do not enable increases in strength to be made unless they are essential. The ceilings are kept constantly under review and if circumstances warrant increases will be made.
§ Colonel ColvilleIs my right hon. Friend aware that in several parts of the country, and notably in Scotland, there will be no difficulty in increasing the strength and operational value of the Home Guard if this ceiling is raised, and that the present limit is causing misunderstanding and disappointment among men who do not fully understand its necessity?
§ Sir J. GriggI understand that the military authorities are reviewing the ceiling.
§ Colonel ColvilleMay I take it that their views will receive sympathetic consideration?
§ Sir J. GriggCertainly.