§ 34. Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War how many men he is now aiming to recruit to the Home Guard.
§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)We can now enrol up to 90,000.
§ Mr. SwinglerIn view of the way in which Opposition warnings about the recruitment of the Home Guard have been justified by events, would it not be wise to review the whole organisation of the Home Guard before proceeding with further recruitment? What, for example, is the Minister going to do with the one volunteer in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party?
§ Mr. HeadWe have reviewed the whole scheme, and all I can say is that the hon. Member is not doing the Home Guard or anybody else any good by trying to sabotage it.
§ Mr. ShinwellIf a reasonable question is addressed to the right hon. Gentleman on a matter in which it is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to implement the promise he made, is there any reason why he should lose his temper?
§ Mr. HeadI have not lost my temper. All I said was that, as announced in some detail, the scheme has been reviewed, and new measures have been introduced.
§ Sir W. DarlingWould my right hon. Friend consider that the addition to the establishment of a limited number of education officers would help in the recruitment of the Home Guard?
§ Mr. SwinglerMay I ask the Minister on what evidence he has alleged that hon. Members of the Opposition have sabotaged this organisation, and, if he has no evidence to prove it, will he withdraw?
§ Mr. ShinwellIf the right hon. Gentleman has specific evidence that hon. Members on this side of the House have sabotaged the Home Guard scheme, will he be good enough to make a statement 248 to the House at the end of Questions, or, alternatively, produce a White Paper giving the facts relating to the statement which he has just made?
§ Mr. ShinwellAs hon. Members on this side are not aware, and as I certainly am not aware, of the facts to which the right hon. Gentleman has made reference, will he be good enough to furnish the information?
§ Mr. BellengerOn a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the word "sabotage" is a Parliamentary expression when applied to hon. Members of this House, bearing in mind all the meanings attributed to that word during the war?
§ Mr. SpeakerI must confess that I am not provided with adequate and clear definitions of the term "sabotage," and I cannot say whether it is in order or not; but, if it does imply any evil intent or undisclosed and unavowed motive on the part of hon. Members, it would not be in order.
§ Mr. HeadFurther to that point of order, may I say that if, by that word, I suggested disloyalty in any way, I withdraw it, unreservedly. The sense in which I used the word was to impede, and not in any way to be disloyal.
§ Mr. StracheyThis is a serious charge that has been made. [Interruption.] Of course it is a very serious charge. Whether the word "sabotage" is used or not, I suggest that the House will not be satisfied unless an inquiry is made into this matter and the Secretary of State for War produces some evidence to support such a charge, which is deeply resented on this side of the House.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanFurther to that point of order. May I submit to you, Sir, that the alteration of the word "sabotage" to the word "impede" makes no difference whatever, and that the charge was quite clearly one that hon. Members on this side of the House had set to work in order to render abortive an Act of Parliament 249 passed by this House and now the law of the land? I submit to you, Sir, that such a reflection upon hon. Members has always been held to be completely out of order, and ought to be completely withdrawn.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not understand it in that sense. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the fact that there was a difference of opinion as to the advisability of proceeding with the Home Guard. If it only means that, it is in order, although it is a matter of debate.
§ Mr. AttleeSurely, Mr. Speaker, there is a distinction when Members in the course of their duty suggest that a scheme which is being put forward is unlikely to be successful and is ill-timed. That is one thing. It is quite another to accuse hon. Members, when that scheme has been brought in, of deliberately impeding it. That is what the right hon. Gentleman did.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that is so, but if the right hon. Gentleman meant it in that sense I think he would probably like to withdraw it.
§ Mr. HeadIf I have given an entirely false impression. I would, of course, like to withdraw. My point about the scheme is that hon. Members opposite have constantly suggested that the whole scheme is a waste of time.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanSo it is.
§ Mr. HeadThere you are. The only point in my remarks is that in the case of men who have either joined or who are thinking of joining, it does impede the scheme for a large section of the House to say that it is a waste of time.
§ Mr. SilvermanOn a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman has not begun to understand the ground of complaint. It is certainly the case that a great many Members of the House, indeed practically all Members on this side of the House, thought from the beginning that the scheme was misconceived, said so, and opposed it. But what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that, since it became the law of the land, active measures have been taken by hon. Members on this side of the House to render an Act 250 of Parliament abortive. If he did not mean that by his use of the words "sabotage" or "impede," then he was merely wasting the time of the House by using entirely meaningless language.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the right hon. Gentleman has now explained what he meant. As to the different meanings that can be placed on these words, that is really a matter for the House and not for me.
§ 42. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War how much expenditure he has incurred on the Home Guard to date.
§ Mr. HughesCan the Minister tell us if the figures for Ayrshire for recruitment into the Home Guard are better than those for Perthshire, and if he attributes that fact to "sabotage" or any other reason in Perthshire?
§ Mr. ShinwellWill the right hon. Gentleman not regard it as an improper supplementary question if I ask him whether the vast sum of money that has been expended will ultimately be justified by the numbers obtained?