HOME GUARD BILL (Hansard, 5 December 1951)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison)
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"
Those hon. Members who were present at the discussion on the Home Guard Bill during the Committee and Report stages will remember that there was quite a considerable exchange of opinion as to whether we should now devise a form of words which might narrow a possible gap between the mustering of the Home Guard and the breaking out of what I might call actual hostilities.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War undertook to see if he could find a form of words which would satisfy hon. Members and perhaps allay their doubts and fears. The result of his consideration is reflected in the words of the Clause which was moved in another place and which has come back to us here. The effect of it is that the mustering of the Home Guard can only take place in a situation of really very considerable gravity. It will be noticed that an order for the mustering of the Home Guard shall only be given when either a proclamation ordering the Army Reserve to be called out has, in fact, taken place or 2440 on the Territorial Army being called out for actual military service.
I think hon. Members will agree that neither of these two contingencies is the least likely to take place except in a situation of considerable gravity, and that, consequently, this Clause, which I hope the House will accept, does, in fact, narrow the gap, and, I hope, give satisfaction to those who have fears and doubts.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)
I am sure that we on this side of the House will want to express gratification at the fact that it has been possible to make this amendment to the Bill. What it does, although only in a very limited field, is, I think, of first-class constitutional importance, because it means that the important action of mustering the Home Guard is no longer exclusively within the power of a military person and that there must be a political act before professional soldiers can take action of this kind. It is gratifying to see that principle asserted. I have always had a limited respect for another place, and I always feel that it is at its best when giving practical effect to ideas which first find their expression in this House, particularly if the idea comes from this side.

§ Mr. W. T. Proctor (Eccles)
This new Clause arises out of the discussion that took place in the House on the use of the Home Guard during an industrial dispute. My hon. Friends and I wished to prohibit the use of the Home Guard in any industrial dispute. I submit that the Bill, as amended, gives specific power to use the Home Guard in connection with an industrial dispute. That power was specifically placed in the Bill when the Government were purporting to put in the exact opposite.
I contend that the power to use the Home Guard in this connection still exists in the Bill even with the inclusion of the Lords Amendment both in peace-time and war-time and that although the Lords Amendment lessens the possibility of it being so used in peace-time it does not prohibit it altogether. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to go all the way in this matter and prohibit absolutely the use of the Home Guard in an industrial dispute. This was something which I hoped they would attempt, but which they have not done so.

§ Mr. Hutchison
I do not want to leave the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) with the impression that we did not try to do what he desires. Our great difficulty was to find a definition of an industrial dispute or to designate aid to a civil power in an industrial dispute.