§ 21. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War the financial saving involved during the first six months of this year through treating Home Guard officers as private soldiers in respect of medical treatment?
§ Sir J. GriggNone of the records kept show the cost to the public of treating Home Guard officers as such, and I regret that the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend could not be obtained without considerable labour, which in present circumstances would hardly be justifiable.
§ Sir T. MooreSince there is apparently no saving involved and no other reason for this anomaly, will my right hon. Friend continue to treat Home Guard officers as private soldiers while expecting them to bear the responsibilities of officers?
§ Sir J. GriggThat is another question, which my hon. and gallant Friend might raise on another occasion.
§ 39. Major Manningham-Bullerasked the Secretary of Stale for War the number of members of the Home Guard who have been convicted by courts-martial of offences which were triable as felonies or misdemeanours by the civil courts; and whether, as a court-martial cannot place an accused on probation or bind him over to be of good behaviour, he will give instructions that in future Home Guards charged with civil offences shall be brought before the civil courts and not charged under Section 4 of the Army Act before courts-martial?
§ Sir J. GriggThe answer to the first part of the Question is nine. It is sometimes desirable to try a Home Guard by court-martial for a civil offence which he commits in relation to his position and duties as a Home Guard, but the regulations require that authority for such a trial must be obtained from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. I do not think any further instructions are necessary.
§ Major Manningham-BullerIs not the least sentence that a court-martial can pass on a Home Guard member for such offences a sentence to detention?
§ Sir J. GriggI am not sure about that.