HOME GUARD [MONEY] (Hansard, 26 November 1951)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)
I beg to move, to leave out "any Government," and to insert "the war."
I ought to apologise for "war" being spelt with a small "w" because it might be thought to refer to the next war instead of being the adjective describing the War Department. The object of this 1009 Amendment is to attempt to limit in some way the number of Government Departments which can incur expenditure on the Home Guard. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that in their Election addresses and in their policy they were good enough to say that they would go through with a toothcomb all the various sums which might possibly be expended on military expenditure.
Fortunately, there has been a list of Government Departments published, and it is possible to ask—and I hope we shall have some answer from the Financial Secretary—which Government Departments he expects will spend under the Bill. If he does not like my Amendment that the money is to be restricted only to the War Department, then we might postpone the matter for a day to enable him to think out which Departments would be the proper ones to spend it. The Admiralty, it would seem, from what the hon. Gentleman said, cannot make up their minds whether they want to come in or not. In those circumstances is it not a little premature that we should allow money to be spent by a Department which cannot make up its mind?
What about the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries? Can we hear how it is to spend the money? What about Commonwealth Relations? It is a quite absurd state of affairs when we are told on the one hand that we are to economise and to be very careful how we allow any Department to spend money, and then, on the first military Measure being introduced, to allow every possible Department to spend money under the Financial Resolution.
It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying it is common form, because it is not. He has only to look at the other Money Resolutions on the Order Paper to see how he ought to redraft this one. We ought not to proceed to the Committee stage without knowing how the Minister of Education, now unfortunately excluded from the Cabinet, is to contribute. What is the sum which the Ministry of Education is to spend on the Home Guard?
What about the Ministry of Food? Is that Ministry to call out the Home Guard under some circumstances? What about the Foreign Office? I do not see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs here, but perhaps he will have 1010 something to say about this. What about the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the Ministry of Health? The Leader of the House is here and perhaps he will tell us how his Department is to take part in the activities of the Home Guard. Then there is the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Perhaps that is the secret of the housing plan—that the Home Guard will be called out to deal with things with which Departments have failed to deal.
Then there are the Law Officers, and the Lord President of the Council, the general co-ordinator. Perhaps he is to call them out. Is his the Department by which this money is to be spent? There are also the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. Under this Resolution even His Majesty's Household would be entitled to spend money on the Home Guard. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, in view of the advice to use pikes in the past, will be called in to give technical and expert advice.
It is really quite absurd when we have this Bill and this Financial Resolution and the Government come to the Committee and cannot make up their minds which Department is to spend this money. Before the Committee passes a Resolution of this kind we ought to have an answer as to which Department is to spend the money.

§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)
I am rather surprised at the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) moving this Amendment because, knowing his reputation for skill in research in the past, I expected, when I read the Amendment, a surprise bomb which would prove to me that the Amendment was not as naïve as I originally thought it to be. I find my original thoughts are confirmed. Therefore, as briefly as possible, I should like to explain the position to the hon. and learned Member, who, I think, has not been entirely worthy of his past researches.
It has always been the procedure with any Government that there are certain responsibilities for services concerned with all legislation which is carried out by other Government Departments concerned. Indeed, allowances are made within those Government Departments for such services. This procedure was 1011 reviewed by the late Government in June, 1950. If the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch would like to continue his researches, it is in Cmd. 796. They confirmed that they considered this procedure to be the most economical method of fulfilling the functions required.
The hon. and learned Member asked me what Government Department was concerned, and he ranged from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to many other interesting and amusing guesses. I can tell him exactly who is concerned. There is the Exchequer and Audit Department, who are concerned with the cost of audit. There is the Treasury Solicitor, who is concerned with the cost of certain legal consultations. There is the Stationery Office, which is concerned with stationery and printing. There is the Central Office of Information, which is concerned with publicity and recruiting—[Laughter.]—on a somewhat reduced scale. There is the Ministry of Pensions, which is concerned with payments of disability pensions mentioned in the Bill—not on a reduced scale. There is the Post Office, which is concerned with inland post, telegraph and telephone services and the organisation for the enrolment which I outlined on the Second Reading of the Bill.
I can tell the hon. and learned Member exactly what the implications would be if I were to accept his Amendment. I would have to set up within the War Office and there would have to be within the Departments concerned a special system of accounting so that the War Office might repay to those Departments for their essential services the funds they had expended. The substance of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment is this. He is asking me to institute a system which would inevitably bring about an increase in the number of civil servants in Whitehall. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that he is pursuing the late Government's policy in this respect, but I can assure him that it is the policy of the present Government to resist that trend at all costs. Therefore, I say that I much regret that I am forced to refuse this Amendment, both from the point of view of how things have worked in the past and from the 1012 point of view of the implications of engaging extra staff if I were to accept it.

§ Mr. Bing
When the right hon. Gentleman says "at all costs" does he not mean "at almost all costs"? Is he suggesting that the whole object of the Government is to do away with civil servants? If that is so, surely it is an argument for doing away with the right hon. Gentleman himself. Surely he means "at almost all costs." Will he accept from me that if he has decided which Government Departments are to contribute it would be better to set them out in the Financial Resolution? Why should we have this sloppy system continued for a length of time? Would it not be better if the Financial Resolution were so drafted that it meant what it said?
I would be prepared to withdraw my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman were prepared to set down the Departments which he thinks ought to contribute to the cost of the Home Guard. I accept that it is valuable to employ the services of the Central Office of Information. But do let us make our Financial Resolutions clear. It will save a lot of time if Parliament is able to have a clear picture of what Government Departments are to spend.
We do not want to spend all night on other Measures discussing this matter. I do hope that this suggestion will be adopted, that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to postpone the Financial Resolution tonight and will set down the Departments which are going to incur any expenditure so that we can all see what the position is. In those circumstances, I should be pleased to oblige the Committee by withdrawing my Amendment.

§ The Chairman
Does the hon. and learned Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

§ Mr. Bing
No, Sir Charles.