New Clause.—(EXTENT.) (Hansard, 28 November 1951)

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time"
I am very glad indeed to note the conciliatory mood of the Government. I hope it will extend to this proposed new 1623 Clause and that they will accept it in the same spirit in which they have accepted other Motions. Indeed, the longer this Committee has gone on the more conciliatory the Secretary of State for War has become. He has stressed that the essential part of this Bill is that anybody can resign from the Home Guard on giving 28 days' notice. If that good quality and that qualification in this Bill were extended to other military Measures, I am quite sure that it would be far better for the business of the House.
I suggest that the reasons which the Secretary of State has produced for the establishment of a Home Guard in other parts of the country do not apply to Northern Ireland. For example, I quite understand his arguments about the necessity for some kind of reinforcement, some kind of Home Guard, for East Anglia, because, in East Anglia, as we were told yesterday, there are the strong points, the military and air bases, which, presumably, need additional protection by some kind of armed Force.
I do not see that the strategic arguments that apply to East Anglia necessarily apply to Northern Ireland. There. we have a completely different situation. In Northern Ireland, there is no real danger of any seaborne attack, no really great danger of any other kind of attack, such as we were told may occur in East Anglia, for the simple reason that, whereas in the case of an area which is the centre of a base for an atom bomb attack on the U.S.S.R., as in East Anglia, some kind of additional protection is required, we simply have not got that situation in Northern Ireland.
Ireland is peaceable, and the greater part of it has no re-armament programme and no conscription. It does not represent a menace to anybody, and no Russians or Communists wish to attack it at all. We have to realise that fact as the background to this matter, because I believe that Ireland has the most peaceable Government in the world, and that if we allowed our policy to be based on the same principles which have actuated Ireland during the last 10 years, we could keep out of trouble. If we were not provocative in our actions, there would not be any need for a Home Guard to defend our military installations in this country.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
I have followed with the greatest interest the hon. Gentleman's argument about Ireland. May I now ask him if he would apply the same argument to Denmark in 1940?

§ Mr. Hughes
I would be delighted to apply the argument to Denmark in 1940, but we are not establishing a Home Guard in Denmark, and I do not see why I should be remorselessly ruled out of order because the Under-Secretary wants me to be side-tracked. At another time, I am quite prepared to discuss the whole question of Denmark, but Denmark simply does not arise on this Bill, and nobody would be less agreeable if I mentioned Denmark than the hon. Members who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies, who are anxious that we should not be sidetracked into talking about Denmark on a Bill which affects Northern Ireland.
We in this country, apparently, are in danger because of the parachute attack which has been so graphically outlined in the American magazine "Collier's Weekly." In Ireland, there is no real danger of parachute attack by the Russians, and Ireland has the least congenial atmosphere for Communism in Western Europe. The Irish are not affected by Communism, either North or South, and we should get that out of our heads. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), said in a speech on Second Reading: We in Northern Ireland are most grateful that we have been fully incorporated in the Bill. I can quite understand that in that speech he spoke for a certain section of the population of Northern Ireland. But there is in Northern Ireland not merely one nationality; there are two distinctly opposed political points of view.

§ Mr. Alan McKibbin (Belfast, East)
I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the last war sections of the whole community of Northern Ireland were in the Home Guard, Catholics and Protestants.

§ Mr. Hughes
I do not wish to fall out with the hon. Gentleman on this point, and I am not going to elaborate it because I understand other hon. Members wish to speak. But there is this plain fact that in Northern Ireland we have to meet an entirely different strategic situation 1625 under an entirely different psychology. The point I wish to stress in this debate is that Northern Ireland has a sufficient armed Force already and that there is no reason at all for assuming that what is good for East Anglia is necessarily good for Londonderry and Donegal. The hon. Gentleman said: I am confident that the people of Ulster will volunteer in satisfactory numbers for the Home Guard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November. 1951; Vol. 494, c. 616.] That is an implication which we should consider very carefully. For example—

§ Mr. McKibbin
The hon. Gentleman has made a mistake. Donegal is not in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)
It is the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), who makes the mistake. Donegal is the most northern part of all Ireland geographically.

§ Mr. Hughes
I was speaking geographically. I suggest that when the hon. Member for Belfast, East, drew the parallel of the last war and said that Catholics and Protestants were in the Home Guard, that may have been so then, but are we sure that in the present situation in Ireland we would get the Home Guard organised in such a way that Catholics would have equal rights with Protestants? Have they the same rights, for example, in the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest that at the present time the situation which exists in Ireland is such that a commanding officer would be able to say to the Catholics, "Come in and join the Home Guard. We can work together in this Force"?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was Sir Denis Henry, a former Tory Prime Minister and a Catholic?

§ Mr. Hughes
But we are discussing the Home Guard.

§ Sir T. Moore
Would the hon. Gentleman explain, in the course of his further speech, his sudden and inexplicable interest in Northern Ireland. Is not Ayrshire sufficiently interesting to occupy his mind?

§ Mr. Hughes
If these digressions are allowed to continue, they will take us 1626 completely away from the Clause. I should be quite prepared to discuss the status and the history of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and, indeed, of every Lord Chief Justice if I knew they were going to be mustered in the Home Guard.
If we set out to establish a Home Guard in Ireland, we shall have in control of it people who represent the political viewpoint of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, and they will simply not admit Catholics into the Home Guard because they will be scared at the possibility of the Catholics capturing the Home Guard.

§ Sir T. Moore
Nonsense!

§ Mr. Hughes
At present the proposal to import arms into Ireland and to establish a new kind of military organisation in Ireland will only bring further discord to Ireland, and the idea should not be embarked upon. We are only going to give the Home Guard steel helmets and arm-bands and I reject the idea that a procession of people wearing steel helmets and arm-bands through the streets with the hon. Member for Belfast, East, in front of them is likely to add to unity in Ireland.
Northern Ireland ought to be left out of the Bill. The Government's proposal will only provoke people who have different points of view and will add nothing to the security of the country but will rather create another inflammable irritant in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for War will be well advised to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Delargy
I am very glad to have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Colonel Ropner, because for nearly two years I have been a silent Member of the House of Commons.

§ Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Delargy
I hasten to assure the hon. Member that in the next two minutes he will learn that I am silent no longer. I was a Government Whip during the last Parliament, and the only time I got to my feet was to mumble the time-honoured formulæ which Government Whips are accustomed to mumble.
From time to time, however, I made a short speech such as certain hon. Gentlemen would have been delighted to 1627 hear made last night or early this morning, the speech being, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn." However, times change, and, owing to the geographical disposition of the constituencies in this country, and despite the fact that my party secured far more votes than did the Conservative Party, I now find myself in opposition. However, being in opposition has an advantage, since I can now speak, and it is most appropriate that I should be speaking on the subject of Northern Ireland.
I interrupt myself here to remind the Committee that when I speak about Northern Ireland I do not, of course, mean Northern Ireland at all. The legal term "Northern Ireland" is merely a legal fiction. I have already been obliged to give the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), a few lessons in Irish geography, and it should be understood that when I speak about Northern Ireland I mean the Six Counties in the northeastern corner of Ireland. I hope that when I use the words "Northern Ireland" hon. Members will remember that it is simply for the sake of simplicity and convenience.
It is fitting that I should be speaking about Northern Ireland because, as is well known to everybody, I know rather more about Northern Ireland than perhaps, any other hon. Member in this Committee. It is a great pity that during the last two years the House has been deprived of my advice on this subject owing to my enforced silence. Even when my own party were in office, they were never very ready at accepting my advice. Because they did not accept my advice and that of several of my hon. Friends, very disastrous results have followed—very disastrous results for Western defence. I hope that the present Government may give more heed to my advice than did my own party when they were in office.
I support the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I support it most cordially, and for two reasons, one of them a general reason and the other more specific, but both of them very relevant to the terms of the Motion. The general reason is this. I have always protested that any legislation enacted in this House should be extended to Northern Ireland.
1628 I have always maintained that Irish affairs should be administered by Irishmen in Ireland and not by English, Scots and Welshmen assembled here in London. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Irish."] Had that policy of mine been followed, we would not have been debating this Measure tonight; there would have been no need for it. Had that policy been followed, Ireland—all Ireland—would now be a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. She would be playing her full part—

§ Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)
Rubbish.

§ Mr. Delargy
—in the collective system of Western defence. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who, normally, is very quiet indeed—I hope we will have the opportunity of hearing him later in the debate—interrupts to say, "Rubbish." The reason given over and over again by the statesmen of the Republic of Ireland why their country did not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was simply that it was—

§ The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Ropner)
The hon. Member must relate his remarks more closely to the new Clause.

§ Mr. Delargy
Very well, Colonel Ropner. But I was sidetracked by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South.
I was trying to point out that had Ireland been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation that would have been a far more valuable contribution to our collective system of defence than is this paltry little Home Guard Measure which the Government seek to impose on the people of Northern Ireland. Because Irish statesmen object, quite rightly, to the occupation of part of their territory by an outside force, they cannot be a partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The more specific reason why I support my hon. Friend's Motion is that, knowing the Six Counties of Northern Ireland as I do, I have every reason to assure the Committee that the method of recruitment to this Force, and the purposes for which it will be used, will be such as to be quite outside the scope of the Bill.
1629 My hon. Friend has already pointed out that besides having the largest police force for the size of the area—the largest police force of any country in the Western world—all of them armed, the Northern Ireland Government has also at its disposal another force of trained, armed and paid men called the "B" Specials. These men are carefully chosen. They are vetted for their political opinions. They are obliged to be members of the local lodges of their Orange Order. They are armed, trained, kept on the Government payroll and, whenever the Government wishes, they are mustered and sent out against the civilian population.

§ Sir T. Moore
That is not true.

§ Mr. Delargy
If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to interrupt and to tell me why it is not true, I will listen to him.

§ Sir T. Moore
I said that what the hon. Gentleman said was not true.

§ Mr. Delargy
The hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement is inaccurate. The Home Guard in Ireland would be recruited on precisely those methods. Volunteers to the Home Guard in Ireland would be vetted as are the "B" Specials, and the police, for their political opinions.

§ Sir T. Moore
That is not true, either.

§ Mr. Delargy
They would be used for the purpose of supporting the Unionist Government in Northern Ireland, as are the police and the "B" Specials. I do not think the Secretary of State for War would wish that to happen. In other words, if he had a Home Guard in Northern Ireland it would not be used for the purpose of collective defence; it would be used as a weapon for internal political reasons.

§ Sir T. Moore
That is not true, either.

§ Mr. Delargy
The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have time to make a speech. The Rule is suspended and we can stay up all night if we like; but I do not want to detain the Committee.
There are enough guns already in Northern Ireland; we do not want any more there. Since the people in Northern Ireland, who are now said to be clamouring to come into the Home Guard, would not even consent to conscription during the war, I do not know that they are so patriotic as to want a Home Guard at all.

§ Mr, C. H. Gage (Belfast, South)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that the people who went into the Home Guard did not want conscription. Their representatives here voted in favour of it.

§ Mr. Delargy
I know there is no extrinsic evidence that these people who joined the Home Guard wanted to resist conscription. All I have stated is that there was no conscription in Northern Ireland, and I do not remember any great demonstrations pleading that there should be. I remember that when there was a threat of it there was an enormous exodus of Northern Ireland people over the Border into the South.
I repeat, there are too many guns already in Northern Ireland and it would be very dangerous to introduce any more. I hope this new Clause will be accepted by the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. McKibbin
A number of the hon. Gentleman's statements were incorrect. One was when he said the R.U.C. were armed. Their arms were taken from them in January.

§ Mr. Delargy
They had been armed for 20-odd years.

§ Mr. McKibbin
Another incorrect statement was that about the police vetting the Home Guard and seeing who was permitted to join. I understand that the Home Guard will be administered by the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland and that the police will have nothing whatever to do with who should join.
It seems, perhaps, strange, that the question of whether we should have a Home Guard or not should concern anyone other than Northern Ireland. It does not concern only Northern Ireland, however; it concerns the whole of this country and the defence of Western Europe. The present Prime Minister wrote to our Prime Minister in 1945 saying: A strong, loyal Ulster will always he vital to the security and well-being of our whole Empire and Commonwealth. Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke, who was at that time Chief of the Imperial General Staff said: Northern Ireland was the bastion of our Imperial defences on our western Front. In 1631 Ulster we had those necessary bases for our Navy and Air Force that protected our Western Approaches—the jugular vein through which flowed munitions, supplies and fuel for the fighting forces.

§ Mr. Delargy
When the hon. Gentleman uses that very valuable witness, Viscount Alanbrooke, it may be as well to point out to the Committee that he has a certain interest in the matter, being an Ulster man himself and a very close relative of the Tory Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. McKibbin
I will now quote from General Eisenhower—and he has no relatives there. He said: Without Northern Ireland I do not see how the American Forces could have been concentrated to begin the invasion of Europe. If Ulster had not been a definite, co-operative part of the British Empire and had not been available for our use I do not see how the build-up could have been carried out in England. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) talked the other day about being at five courts-martial because he had been before them, and now he claims more knowledge of what part Northern Ireland plays in British strategy than these famous generals. He should have kept those courts-martial rather dark for if ever a Home Guard is formed in Westminster they will be remembered.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
The hon. Gentleman quoted General Eisenhower. He is one of my constituents.

§ Mr. McKibbin
The Ulster Home Guard in the last war was a most proficient Force, and in Belfast we had great shipyards, aeroplane works and engineering works to guard that were vital to the war effort. The Germans knew all about them and carried out three disastrous raids on Belfast. If then the Home Guard had been ready to man the "ack-ack" guns—as they were at a later time, when it was too late—many lives would have been saved in Belfast and much damage to property prevented. I hope that we shall not be left defenceless again, as we would be if this new Clause were carried.
Some reference has been made to the Southern Border, but the Irish Republic has no international commitments of any 1632 kind. I do not believe that the people of Southern Ireland would ever attack us or allow their country to be used to attack us if they could possibly help it. I do not forget that when those air raids that I have mentioned took place the Southern Irish sent up their fire engines to help us put out our fires. Our engines, sent over from England, could not do it, because they did not fit the hydrants in Belfast. The firemen and fire-engines came streaming up from Dublin.
A short time ago I was sitting in the lounge of a Dublin hotel and got into an argument. There were some men who were saying that Ulster would have to be attacked, and the argument got rather heated. A lady there said to me, "Do not bother about them at all. Every Saturday night they have a drink or two and then they say they are going to invade Ulster. On Sunday morning they have forgotten all about it; they do not remember a thing about it until the following Saturday night."

§ Mr. J. Hudson
Would the hon. Gentleman take into account what drink is really like?

§ Mr. McKibbin
The people of Northern and Southern Ireland understand each other. People like those who are behind this new Clause know nothing about Ireland. I talked to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) two or three months ago, and I asked him if he was any relation of the Delargys of Northern Ireland. He said that he did not think he was. Indeed, he said that he never went to Northern Ireland if he could help it. The only reason he liked to go there was that when he got there people called him Delargy—with a hard "g"—instead of pronouncing it with a soft "g," as it is pronounced in England.

§ Mr. Delargy
It is true, of course, that I cannot claim relationship with all the Delargys in Northern Ireland. We should be simply congested with them. The reason that I do not go to Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland does not welcome me. The last time I went there to make a speech they banned the meeting.

§ Mr. McKibbin
We people in Ireland—North and South—understand each other. Those who have put forward this Motion know nothing about Ireland. I 1633 think that if they left us alone, instead of bringing in Motions like this, we would get on very much better together. In any case, we want to be prepared, and we hope to take our place alongside England should another war occur. I do not see why the proposer of this Motion should try and keep us out of the fun.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)
I think that the Committee would be very wrong if it reproved hon. Members for laughing, but while we can laugh for a moment, I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), that the next war will be fun—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—shows the degree of unreality in which he has approached this Motion. This is not a question of keeping Northern Ireland out of the fun; this is a question of trying to prevent, so far as we can, those stresses and troubles which affect us all, and which lead to deeds of violence of which none of us is in favour. It would have been better had the hon. Gentleman devoted himself to the merits of the proposal before the Committee.
He said that during the war the Northern Ireland Home Guard was a very efficient Force, but I do not think that he realised that it is not proposed to re-create the type of Force which was in Northern Ireland at that time. This proposal is an entirely different one. Let us at least have the argument as to why we should, if there was a very efficient type of Force in the war, now create a quite different one. The argument which I want shortly to address to the Committee, I can put under three headings, which, I hope, hon. Members will really consider seriously.
First, is it really necessary for Northern Ireland to have a Home Guard at all in view of the particular Forces which are at the disposal of the Government there? Second, even if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there may be some balance of advantage in having an additional Force, does he really consider, in view of the various points which I am going to put to him, is politically desirable; and, third, will he tell us something about the constitutional arrangements which have been made for the control of the Force? We had a long debate about what was happening in the Isle of Man, but at least there were some 1634 particular provisions made for the Isle of Man, and Northern Ireland has not been shown even that courtesy.
First, as to whether the Force is necessary or not, may I quote to the Committee what was said by a very distinguished Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament on this subject? Mr. Tom Lyons, who sits for North Tyrone, speaking to the North Tyrone Unionist Association said that he could not see why they needed a Home Guard in Ulster, so long as they had a strong force of "B" Specials. In his opinion they had a permanent Home Guard Force, and he did not see how anyone could call it anything else. The Committee of the North Tyrone Unionist Association was also addressed by Mr. Tom Teevan, and may I say—in parenthesis—that we regret most particularly his absence from this House as a representative from Northern Ireland.
9.30 p.m.
The position in Northern Ireland is unlike the position here, in that there is already a large body of armed paramilitary police. The hon. Gentleman has said that the R.U.C. have been disarmed, but they only number 3,000 as compared to 10,000 armed Special Constabulary. The population of Northern Ireland is not all that large. The actual number of males between the age of 15. which is the lowest age to which we can go for the Home Guard, and 75, which is the highest we can go to, is some 440,000.
Prior to the disarmament of which we have been told, there was one armed policeman for every 35 people in Northern Ireland and then after this reform—the Committee can work it out for themselves—there is one armed special constable to every 33 or 34 of the population. That is the measure of Conservative reform in 22 years in Northern Ireland.
Here is a force which has got a far stronger establishment than has any Home Guard that we are proposing to establish in this country. They have already got a headquarters staff of permanent officials, in that the Special Constabulary have 110 full-time officers. That includes eight commandants—I do not know how many commandants there will be in the Home Guard or what the equivalent rank will be for an area like 1635 Northern Ireland—eight adjutants and three staff officers, a set-up which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, were he on this side of the Committee, might describe as a bureaucratic team to assist them in their labours.
Then there are on part-time pay 371 senior officers, that is to say, 35 district commandants and 346 sub-district commandants. These gentlemen are only part-time and very often they double their job with that of election agent. That is fortunate, because, for example, when the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland came to reply after his election he was able to thank in one breath his election agent and the police who had made all the arrangements for it.
This large staff of part-time persons are armed and employed in the Special Constabulary, and the question I want the right hon. Gentleman to devote his mind to is, irrespective of whose party they happen to be agents of if they are already employed in that fashion, do we need any more of them? The total comes to over 9,600 part-time armed Special Constabulary, who are undergoing training, making a total of just over 10,000 full-time and part-time armed special police. They are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) said, derived purely for reasons of convenience from one political party, thus making the recruiting and social life easier. It also happens that they are all from one religious faith.
Irrespective of party faith, however, it happens that there is already a Home Guard in Northern Ireland in all but name. Why, in those circumstances, do we need another one? If we are to have another one, it will, of course, be composed of the same people as are already in the Special Constabulary unless there is a rule which would apply to Northern Ireland alone that if one was already a special constable one should not join the Home Guard. But whose control is this Home Guard to come under? Is the commandant, because he happens to be the election agent, going to be reduced to the ranks to get into the Home Guard?
All the members of the Special Constabulary are at present issued with arms. If they join the Home Guard are they going to have two rifles instead of one, 1636 or is there any reciprocal arrangement with the Northern Ireland Government whereby they can use for Home Guard duties the rifle which is issued to them by the Northern Ireland Government for their police purposes? Where is their equipment to come from? Are they to have two sets of uniform, a hurrying back from police duties, a quick change over of uniform and then on Home Guard duty? In whose uniform will they be mobilised for the Home Guard, in their police or Home Guard uniform. [HON. MEMBERS: "Arm bands."] Is the arm band to be on the Special Constabulary uniform and is the special constable then to be considered a member of His Majesty's Forces or of the force under the control of the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland. This is not an academic point at all.

§ Mr. McKibbin
Both these forces functioned under separate control during the 1939–45 war, and would operate under separate control.

§ Mr. Bing
That is not the only reason. The hon. Gentleman, who is otherwise so pleasant, is always wrong on all his facts. He really ought to read the year's proceedings of his own Parliament. If he would set himself to it, he could easily get through the five volumes and be up-to-date. He should read what the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said about the control of this Force, when replying, I think to a fellow Unionist Member who had asked him to separate the war-time Home Guard from the police force. He replied that he was sorry but he could not meet his wishes because, as his questioner probaby knew, the police force and the Home Guard were very similar, and were inseparably linked up.
That was the Northern Ireland Force during the war period, when the Home Guard were part of the police force and the police were part of the Home Guard.

§ Mr. McKibbin
The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong altogether. The new Home Guard that is being formed is not being enlisted this time as police constables but is being enrolled entirely by the Army authorities.

§ Mr. Bing
That may be so, but why did the hon. Gentleman address an argument to the Committee and say that they were very efficient last time? Why did 1637 he not follow it up by saying: "What a pity that we are not following the same sort of organisation that we had last time"? He cannot have it both ways. We have the members of the "B" Specials—

§ Commander J. F. W. Maitland (Horncastle)
Who are these Specials, and what does "B" stand for?

§ Mr. Bing
All I can say is that when the Unionist Association saw fit to set up this body, they thought this to be the most appropriate name for them.
They are an armed force, a police who are sometimes on parade and sometimes not, but who have had conferred upon them by law certain powers whether on parade or not. Therefore, the whole constitutional position is one of extreme difficulty and I will now come back to the point with which I was dealing. How is this Force to be controlled? Last time the control of it was handed over to the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland and—if hon. Members will allow me to accept what the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said as correct on one occasion—control was operated from Belfast.
That could be done in two ways. The Secretary of State for War could either make the Minister his agent and he would have charge of the Home Guard in that way, or else it would be an organisation quite distinct. I must deal with all these problems because unless the right hon. Gentleman is going to prevent enlistment of special constables in the Home Guard he will find himself under great constitutional and practical difficulties about the use of firearms and the shooting of people, which will lead to very great difficulties from the point of view of the law courts apart from any other.
If a special constable has occasion in the course of duty to shoot anyone it is usual to plead the Special Powers Act just as people here, when they cannot pay a debt of honour, plead the Gaming Act. There was a recent case before the Belfast High Court where a constable who had shot someone said he had acted in accordance with the very wide powers granted him under the Special Powers Act. It is true of course that Regulations under this Act have now 1638 been revoked, but there is no reason at all why at any time by a stroke of the pen the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, if he so desires, cannot empower any constable to close any newspaper or arrest anyone.
If these people who are special constables are also Home Guards what is the use of the various safeguards which we have to deal with the conduct of the Home Guard? The whole thing is quite absurd and needs more thinking out, unless the Government are prepared to drop it altogether.
Leaving this aspect aside, whatever are our views about special constables, there are in Northern Ireland sufficient armed forces—10,000 men, of whom 400 or 500 are part-time—for any purpose the Secretary of State for War has in mind. Although the Committee were in a rather hilarious mood just now I hope they will bear with me if I say this seriously—that really the curse of Ireland has been the introduction of private armies. And for the introduction of private armies into Ireland a very heavy responsibility rests upon the party opposite.
I do not have a good word for the Prime Minister very often, but I would not like this occasion to pass without remembering even at this length of time the courageous stand he took against this use of private armies. What is generally not recognised is that this private army was mobilised under the guise of a legal force. People were sworn in, in some cases as special constables and in other cases by various expedients such as licensing by the magistrates under the Unlawful Drillings Act. Therefore, I would have thought it is most undesirable to re-create the conditions in which a private army can be formed.
9.45 p.m.
I do not know if any hon. Member opposite will say that it is undesirable to use force. As the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said in far stronger language than I have implied, it is undesirable to threaten Parliament with force. But that, after all, is what was done by the party opposite under the cover of exactly the same sort of legal provisions as we have at the moment. Let us be a little careful to see that we do not do that sort of thing again.
1639 It is unfortunate that the special constables in Northern Ireland are, in fact, an exclusively political force. Perhaps I may give the Committee one or two examples. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) is not here, because he would remember an incident which took place at his own Election. A number of special constables came out with their arms in order to assist in the proceedings, and when the result of the poll was announced, which they were attending with their weapons, they felt that this was an occasion to discharge them. The matter came to the attention of the authorities because they hit not one of the political opponents but one of their colleagues in the police force.

§ Sir T. Moore (Ayr)
What has this light-hearted conversation which is being indulged in by the hon. and learned Member got to do with the Home Guard?

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Everything.

§ Sir T. Moore
I have not noticed it.

§ The Temporary Chairman
I thought the hon. and learned Member was in order, but only just.

§ Mr. Bing
I always congratulate myself on occupying that position, if possible.
This is quite a serious issue. It is all very well for hon. Members to shout and roar: "This does not matter. Let us get rid of all these things and leave these people to fight it out for themselves," but we have a responsibility here before we start throwing any more difficulties in the way. These are political forces. I shall not give hon. Members any more examples. I will merely say that these special constables are a political force. Do not let us set up another force which, however much the good will of anybody concerned, is bound to be recruited on the same sort of basis.
If there is anything important in this Bill, and if there is any Clause to which we should have devoted some time, it is surely one which, if it were allowed to remain in its present state, far from securing peace—which I take it is what everybody is aiming at—would result in far greater ill will and bad feeling and would stir up all sorts of troubles and difficulties. I may have spoken long 1640 enough, but one needs to go on for a good long time in order to impress the minds of some people who are prepared to tolerate this sort of thing, come what may, and try and laugh it off.

§ Mr. Head
In the course of this discussion there have been very many points made on both sides of the Committee. I have listened to all of them and taken note of them. Much of yesterday was spent by some hon. Members suggesting that I was young, inexperienced and ignorant, but I would assure the Committee that I am not sufficiently young, inexperienced, or so ignorant to dive wholeheartedly into Irish politics at this juncture.
I think we have had sufficient evidence during this discussion that in this matter regarding the Home Guard feelings run very high. I do not wish to plunge into the feelings on either side, and I think that so far as the Home Guard is concerned we want to avoid stirring up the ghosts of the past.
Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) feels about Northern Ireland, whatever other hon. Members feel about the south of Ireland, or what another hon. Member, who was not quite sure of the difference between the north and south geographically, feels, we do not want to get tied up on that side of the matter. What is actually before us at the moment is that this Bill is permissive as far as the Home Guard in Northern Ireland is concerned.
Consultations are taking place about this matter between the Home Office and the Government of Northern Ireland, and I know and can assure the Committee, that the whole of these many difficult and very delicate questions concerning the political aspect, the religious aspect and the police aspect are very much in the mind of the Home Office in those discussions. I think it would be wise for the Committee at this stage to allow those discussions to continue.
What is happening is that the matter is being discussed; no decision has yet been taken and, indeed it is likely, perhaps, that it will not be taken for some time to come. But, as hon. Members know, there has been experience in this matter before and that experience will be borne in mind. I suggest to the Committee that as in this Bill we are discussing 1641 the Home Guard in general and that so far as Northern Ireland is concerned it is permissive, in order to avoid going further into the actual political side of the matter as it affects the north and south of Ireland, it might be as well to let those conversations continue and leave out the proposed new Clause for the time being.

§ Mr. Bing
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt on that point? Will the matter come before this House again? I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) but I am perfectly prepared to allow the Motion to be withdrawn, on the understanding that the matter will not be taken from the House but that every Regulation which affects the Home Guard will be laid not only on the Table of the Northern Ireland Parliament, but on the Table of this House. These are the kind of problem we ought to try to sort out in an atmosphere, I hope, devoid of any prejudice. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before any definite steps are taken in regard to Northern Ireland the matter will come before this House?

§ Mr. Head
I am afraid I cannot give the hon. and learned Member that immediate assurance because I am not absolutely certain now, at once, what is the exact procedure., but I will undertake to look into it and let the hon. Member know. I cannot give him an answer immediately because I do not know.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.