HC Deb 12 November 1952 vol 507 cc945-50
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)

With your permission and that of the House, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Home Guard.

Recently I called for reports from all Commands on experience so far gained. These reports have been carefully considered, and I have also consulted the Commander-in-Chief (designate) U.K. Land Forces.

The main points were:

1. That the effective battalions could cover their priority tasks with a lesser number than 900, relying on rapid expansion on the threat of war to enable them to carry out their full tasks over a prolonged period. We have therefore decided to reduce the effective battalions from 900 to 300. It will, however, be more than ever important for these battalions to sign on as many men as possible who would join in war. They will be registered as the Home Guard Reserve Roll.

2. West of the line Flamborough Head/Selsey Bill many of the cadre battalions cover very large areas. This means numerous and widely scattered Home Guard centres. Because their total is now restricted to 50 men, the numbers available in these many centres have been found to be too small for any realistic training or preparation. Reports were unanimous in recommending that their strength should be increased to 100, and this will be done.

3. In view of the reduced total ceiling which these changes will involve, all the Home Guard will be issued with uniform and great-coats.

4. Experience has shown that in some areas the adjutant-quartermasters can act for more than one battalion. Wherever practical this will be done.

5. Reports also made recommendations about several other points, such as the quantity of ammunition issued, unit publicity, badges, etc. Steps are being taken to meet these needs.

In considering the future of the Home Guard, I have been convinced, and so have those responsible for Home Defence, that together with the Civil Defence organisation it meets a most important need. It has been growing steadily, the men who have joined are of the highest quality, and it will, I feel sure, continue to grow. Without it essential security and local defence tasks could only be carried out on mobilisation by the widespread use of the Territorial Army, a course which would seriously interrupt their mobilisation and training.

Although recruiting has shown a steady increase, and last month's figures were the best since June, more men are needed. I think many are now holding back because they are told that the likelihood of war is receding.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

Who said that?

Mr. Head

I would remind them that preparedness, both at home and overseas, is the price we must pay for improved prospects of peace. Preparedness at home is essential, not only as a deterrent, but as an insurance against sudden attack.

Nor is recruiting helped by those in this House and elsewhere who say that the Home Guard is unnecessary. We live in dangerous times and it is rash to take any chances where war is concerned. If it did come, it would be with great force and suddenness and many of these same critics would be the first to condemn un-preparedness in Home defence.

I would assure those who are thinking of joining the Home Guard that, if they do so, they will be doing a very worthwhile job.

Finally, I think hon. Members, whatever their views on this question may be, would wish me to express our appreciation of the public spirit and patriotism of those already serving in the Home Guard.

Mr. Shinwell

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, on the question of the holding back of many from joining the Home Guard because of statements made about the danger of war receding, could give any indication of who made such a statement and who, therefore, is responsible, because obviously he regards this as a fatal statement from the point of view of enrolling men in the Home Guard. May I also ask him, because he has furnished no information on the statement he has just made, how many men are actually enrolled in the Home Guard and to what extent the numbers are increasing?

At the same time, would he be good enough to say what are the administrative costs per man and whether the overheads will increase as a result of the smaller numbers? May I recall to the right hon. Gentleman that when he decided to enrol the Home Guard, against the advice of hon. Members on this side of the House, who told him he would not get the numbers he expected to get—and this has been proved conclusively—that he promised to consult hon. Members if changes were intended? In view of his promise, could we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that we can debate this vital matter—for so the Government regard it—at a very early date?

Mr. Head

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions. With regard to the first, nothing I have said in my statement quarrels with the statements made on this side of the House that the danger of war is receding. All I said was that if we wish that enviable prospect to continue we must remain prepared and not relax.

The right hon. Member asked me how many men had joined. There are just over 22,000 in the Home Guard itself and another 19,000 enrolled on the emergency roll. He asked about the cost; for the current year it will be somewhere about £500,000. He asked me also concerning the consultations with the other side of the House in any question of any changes. All I can say to him is that the kind of treatment we have had for the Home Guard from hon. Members opposite has not suggested that any useful purpose would be served by consultation.

Mr. Shinwell

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is taking up this stand because his attempt to enrol the Home Guard in face of advice given him has proved a complete flop?

Mr. Head

I should like to say most emphatically that every advice I have had and everything I have seen suggests that this is a reversal of flop. We have first-class men in the Home Guard. They form an invaluable cadre on which to expand and, had we not formed it, if war came suddenly we should have to use the Territorial Army, which would stultify mobilisation.

Mr. Shinwell

Is it not true that when the right hon. Gentleman came to the House with his scheme to enrol the Home Guard he intended to raise within the year 125,000 men in a small area of this country and that all he has raised in the period is a matter, I think he said, of 19,000 or so with some reserve force, although he never in fact mentioned the question of a reserve force when his scheme was before the House? Will he tell us whether he regards that as progress?

Mr. Head

I was at pains to point out when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill that the 170,000—not 125,000—

Mr. Shinwell

That makes it worse.

Mr. Head

It may be worse, but the right hon. Gentleman had better wait a moment. All it was was a ceiling above which we would not go. I was at pains to point out that this was like Territorial recruiting, in that we were going to feel our way, which we have done. Furthermore, I would point out that this force with the reserve from other areas amounts to 41,000 and is a very creditable force to have in preparedness against emergency.

Mr. Wood

Is there any chance of extending the age group for recruitment, particularly in the sparsely populated areas, because there are not the men there to form the recruits, and is there any chance of the farm workers, when they have done their annual training, being included in the Home Guard, in which they will probably have to serve in any event?

Mr. Head

So far as joining the Home Guard is concerned, any man over 45 can apply to join, but if he has a reserve liability he must be cleared by the War Office. In this respect, we have attempted to be very generous in giving people permission to join the Home Guard. As regards the part-time service liability of agricultural workers, we cannot, at the present moment, entirely eliminate the part-time liability of agricultural workers.

Mr. Bellenger

Is it not obvious from the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House of the requirements of the Home Guard that he was wrongly advised, when he originally brought the Bill before the House, as to the actual numbers that he thought necessary? Does he not realise that mistakes of this nature can only cause doubt in the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to whether the requirements for which he asks in other spheres of the Armed Forces may not also be exaggerated?

Mr. Head

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when we introduced this Bill the international situation was much less stable than it is now, and hon. Members opposite were accusing us of being "trigger happy" and of saying that war would occur at any moment. Furthermore, I did announce at the time that we were going to start the Home Guard and feel our way in the light of experience. We have had that experience, and it has been very valuable, and we never claimed that the original Force was a rigid one. I did not myself in any way ask the House to agree to this or ever suggest that it would be a plan to be continued indefinitely in the future.

Mr. Attlee

With regard to the very great changes in the number of men required in the Eastern area, that does seem to me to be a curious misjudgment. Does not it rather suggest that the plans have been fitted to the men available rather than the number of men available being called up for particular plans which are being worked out?

Mr. Head

I can understand the right hon. Gentleman thinking that, but since we formed the Home Guard very considerable reconnaissance and planning in conjunction with those responsible for Home Defence has taken place, and we have found two things. Firstly, that the existing cadres are capable of very rapid expansion in war and, secondly, that the number of absolute priority tasks can be restricted in many of these areas. Therefore, we feel that a number of about 300 can cover the absolute priority class, and there should be time on the threat of war to extend this number to cover all the tasks throughout the area, and that extension should not take very long.

Mr. Attlee

Does the same thing apply to the Western area in which there has been an increase? Has reconnaissance discovered more dangerous targets there?

Mr. Head

No, Sir. As I was at pains to explain to the House, the reason for the increase in the Western area is that, with a total of 50 each battalion for such a wide area with many centres, it means that there are only three or four men in some of those centres and no realistic training could take place. If we increase it to 100, we have a nucleus that can get together and do realistic preparation and training.

Colonel J. H. Harrison

When the Territorial Army was reformed in 1947, those of us responsible for raising units found that recruits were extremely slow in coming forward in the first year. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend continues with the courageous start he has made with the Home Guard, he will bring it to the same successful conclusion as we brought the Territorial Army.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no Question before the House.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman rising to a point of order?

Mr. Shinwell

Yes, Sir. I think that it is a valid point of order, because I did, in the course of my questions to the right hon. Gentleman, address a question to the Leader of the House on a prospective debate, and I want to know whether I can ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman if he would consider that suggestion.

Mr. Speaker

We have spent a long time on this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to elicit the information which he requires through the usual channels.