§ 50. Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Defence if he will set up a general home defence guard to be responsible for Home Guard and Civil Defence duties.
§ Mr. StracheyThis proposal has been carefully considered, but I am satisfied that, on balance, it would be undesirable.
§ Sir I. FraserDoes the right hon. Gentleman not think this an impossible arrangement to go on recruiting for Civil Defence with a promise that the people concerned can, in the event of war, immediately go over to the Home Guard? Does not this whole matter require to be gone into by the Service and Home Office Ministers at highest level?
§ Mr. StracheyNo, Sir. The proposal in the hon. Member's Question would amount either to militarisation of the Civil Defence services, or, on the other hand, bringing the Home Guard under 137 the civil authority. We see great objections to either of those courses.
§ Brigadier HeadWill the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into this matter again, because the present situation is interfering with Civil Defence recruiting and preparedness, and the Home Guard is not doing any good?
§ Mr. StracheyIt has been quite clearly stated that the Home Guard will not be raised until an emergency eventuates, and I do not, therefore, see why that should interfere with Civil Defence recruiting.
§ Mr. Peter ThorneycroftWould the right hon. Gentleman say how he can describe our present condition if he does not call it an emergency?
§ Mr. Geoffrey LloydWill the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the motives behind the proposal in this Question is that in certain parts of the country, such as the big cities, it is perhaps Civil Defence which has a priority call for part-time manpower, whereas in certain other districts in the countryside, where airborne landings could take place, the questions are more for the Home Guard?
§ Mr. StracheyThat may be so, but for the moment it is Civil Defence which has the priority. That is the only force which is being raised, and for which we are appealing for recruits.