asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has confirmed the decision to charge full rent for permanent county council houses to the tenant of a hut in the Burnwood Camp, Carluke, Lanarkshire.

The fixing of rents for the huts at Burnwood Camp rests with the county council, who, I understand, had regard primarily to the rents charged for temporary houses in the county.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Department of Health have no discretion and can exercise no influence with the county council in the charging of rents? Does he realise—I am sure he does; he has been there—that the conditions are such in the camp that only one room in each hut can be occupied because the huts are so damp? Is it not a scandal to charge the full rent for the use of one room in an ex-R.A.F. hut?

The position is that local authority rents are not subject to the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reverse the decision to classify the Burnwood Camp, Carluke, Lanarkshire, as a temporary housing scheme and condemn the huts as unfit for human habitation.

No, Sir. These huts should continue to provide temporary accommodation for some time for people who cannot yet be given permanent houses. The work originally done at this camp has not, however, proved sufficient and at my suggestion the county council are carrying out certain improvements.

I am given to understand that the classification of these R.A.F. huts as a temporary housing scheme prejudices the allocation of permanent houses to the village of Carluke; that is to say, there is a reduction of what otherwise they would have received of, I am told, nearly 60 houses. Is that not intolerable, and ought not this camp, which is quite unfit for human habitation, to be condemned?

Again, the position is that the decision on how many houses will be allocated to the village of Carluke is one for the county council and not for the Secretary of State.

In that case, why is the hon. Gentleman answering this Question if he is not responsible? These Questions have been passed by the Chair and I am given to understand that the hon. Gentleman's Department have responsibility in both cases. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman now to say that the Department have no discretion in either of these two matters?

With respect, the noble Lord is asking supplementary questions which go beyond the Question on the Order Paper, although they are not unrelated. I repeat that my right hon. Friend is not in a position to instruct the county council of Lanarkshire as to how many houses out of their county allocation they should allot to Carluke.

If the hon. Gentleman can make suggestions to the county council concerning the accommodation provided, surely he can make suggestions as to the rent they can charge.

In any case, what is the use of condemning these huts as unfit for human habitation, since people have to go on living in them because the Government are either unable or unwilling to provide suitable alternative accommodation?

As the answers to these two Questions have been entirely unsatisfactory and unsympathetic, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland upon what facts he based his decision to encourage local authorities to allow their house tenants to take in lodgers or sub-let; and if he is aware of the confusion which this announcement has caused to local authorities throughout the country.

I am not aware of any confusion in this matter. The position is that I recently took the opportunity of suggesting to local authorities that they might wish to consider modifying any prohibition on lodgers and sub-tenancies at least for particular categories, so far as that can be arranged without creating over-crowding. The need to get the maximum mobility of labour for the defence programme and the provision of accommodation for Festival visitors seem to call for the best possible use being made of our housing resources.

Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to answer the Question? Surely he could not have made such a recommendation to the authorities without some figures. How many houses in Scotland does he think, for example, are not already overcrowded? How many could make available facilities for such sub-tenants? Without those figures, surely the hon. Gentleman should not have made such a statement.

The hon. Gentleman says I ought to have given some figures. If the local authorities ask me to give some figures, we shall be able to give them the figures which the local authorities themselves gave to the Housing Advisory Committee. We know the figures they have already themselves provided and have made suggestions as to how better use may be made of local authority houses.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the offer of the local authorities figures. As I was seeking precisely that information, would he kindly give the House those figures?

Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Constructional Scheme No. 25—Breadalbane Project—of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is likely seriously to affect large sheep stocks in Perthshire; and if he will give an assurance that before confirming this scheme the interests of food production will be fully considered.

Objections to this scheme may be made before 5th May. Thereafter my right hon. Friend must decide, in the light of any objections, of its possible effect on agricultural or other interests, and of the result of any public inquiry which may be held, whether it is in the public interest to confirm it. If it is confirmed Parliament will, of course, have an opportunity of considering it.

Is the hon. Lady aware that a large part of the land affected by this vast scheme which is to cost £15,500,000 is land that has already been rehabilitated under the Hill Farming Act passed by her own Government? Is she further aware that there is grave apprehension that because of the discharge of water from the scheme into the River Earn, serious flooding will take place over this rich agricultural land? Will she see that her right hon. Friend looks into these two points in particular, and has regard to agricultural and food production interests in general?

All these points are being taken into consideration. At the present time technical officers of the Department of Agriculture are carrying out a survey on this very ground. Their report will be in the hands of the Secretary of State before he reaches any decision.

Is the hon. Lady aware that on this occasion this period of 40 days is really too short to enable people to examine this very big scheme carefully, because for the first time, I think I am right in saying, in any of these schemes really rich, first-class agricultural land is affected, as opposed to the important but much less valuable hill land affected in some of the earlier schemes?

It seems to me that the time is a little more than 40 days. It was first decided on 23rd March, and there is until 5th May. I am sure that if there is an objection there is sufficient time to make the objection.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of applicants on the waiting list for houses in the Burgh of Cove and Kilgreggan.

I am informed that the number is 44, Sir.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a Tory local authority who were allocated 20 houses by his Department in May, 1948; that building did not start until January, 1950; and that, as far as I understand, no houses have yet been completed? Would he arrange for the Scottish Special Housing Association to go into this local authority area and build houses for the people who are still waiting for them?

I should like to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the joint letter dated 6th April addressed to him by the Association of County Councils, the Scottish Counties of Cities Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs urgently requesting the postponement of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill; and what action he proposes to take.

My right hon. Friend met representatives of the three associations this morning, and gave them an assurance that he would consider before the Committee stage of the Bill certain specific points which they made to him.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that statement satisfied the local authorities he met?

Yes, Sir, it did.

Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that local authorities have had over 50 years to deal with this problem of river pollution in Scotland, and that many of us feel that the sooner action is taken in the matter the better?

Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State disclose to the House, since this question is coming up for debate very soon, the lines of the objection put forward?

We had a very, very useful discussion with the associations' representatives this morning. I do not want to weary the House by enumerating the suggestions that were then put forward, but no doubt my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity, when we have the Second Reading discussion, of explaining to the Committee fully what they were.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether he has had any representations from the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland about this matter, and will he take those considerations into account? I will send him a copy if he has not had one.

We have had many representations, of course, from different associations who are very anxious to get the Bill through without any unnecessary delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase has taken place in our meat production in Scotland since the commencement of the agricultural expansion programme in June, 1947.

The estimated increase in 1950–51 in the production of beef and veal, mutton and lamb, pigmeat and poultry over that produced in 1946–47 is 33,000 tons, or 22 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the extent of increase in Scotland in the production of cereals and potatoes; and also the figures of the acreage under cultivation since the commencement of the expansion programme.

The estimated increase in cereals production between 1947, the first year of the expansion programme, and 1950 was 57,000 tons, from a decreased acreage of 68,000 acres. The figure for potatoes was 223,000 tons increase from 17,000 acres less. The total area under cultivation in 1947 and 1950 respectively was 1,859,000 and 1,768,000 acres.

Will my hon. Friend tell us to what extent this is due to Government subsidies, and whether he is considering the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that those subsidies should be withdrawn?

We are not seriously considering the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion.

Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that these figures reflect the very greatest credit on our Scottish farmers?

Yes, certainly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that direct subsidies paid to the whole of agriculture are only £20 million?

Only!

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total volume of agricultural output estimated for the year ending May, 1951; and also the comparable figures for the years 1947 and 1939.

The total volume of agricultural output in Scotland for the year ending May, 1951, is estimated to be 18 per cent. greater than in 1946–47 and 47 per cent. greater than pre-war.

Will my hon. Friend indicate to the Scottish farmworkers and farmers our great satisfaction at this tremendous increase in productivity throughout rural Scotland? Will he further indicate to the people of Scotland generally the tremendous fillip that has been given to Scottish agriculture by the Labour Government?

The farmers and farmworkers of Scotland are due the greatest credit for their wonderful efforts since 1947; but I should just like to say that as they are, by and large, the farmers and farmworkers that we had before the war, there must be some reason for their doing so well.

Will the hon. Gentleman give any reason for the enormous drop in home-produced meat?

Does not the Joint Under-Secretary of State agree that this is a great achievement by private enterprise?

I have already paid tribute to the private enterprises responsible. Let me say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the figures I have just given show that there has been a considerable increase in the home production of meat in recent years.

In recent years, but the hon. Gentleman was talking of pre-war. Naturally, even the Labour Government cannot always stay at their lowest point. Even they have to progress one way or the other.

May we take it that the figures given in the last three answers are to be found in the published reports of the Department?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the Report of the Catto Committee on the financial relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am not yet able to say when the Report will be ready.

While we all wish this Committee to do its job properly, is it not taking an inordinately long time to produce the facts to justify a possible further inquiry?

The Committee was appointed in July, 1950. It has met seven times since. A certain number of that Committee have spent a considerable time taking evidence. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that this is not something that can be decided in a day, and that a great deal of evidence has to be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the strong opposition aroused by his refusal to endorse the nominee of the West Lothian County Council for the position of children's officer; and whether he is prepared to reconsider the position and approve the proposed appointment.

It was considered that the candidate in question did not have the experence and qualifications required in a children's officer; and after discussion with the county council, my right hon. Friend directed that he should not be appointed. I regret that no new information has been produced which would lead him to a different conclusion.

Is the hon. Lady aware of the excellent record of the West Lothian County Council in respect of the care of children, and is it likely that a council with such a record would make wantonly an unwise appointment? Is it not possible that too much stress is being placed upon paper qualifications?

No. It was pointed out clearly that we were not stressing paper qualifications at all, but from the evidence which we have this particular man has had no experience of local authority work with children, has had no administrative experience, and, as far as we know, has had no contact at all with deprived children. Naturally, the Secretary of State must be very careful when these appointments are made, since deprived children have not the care of their own parents.

While I recognise the validity of the answer my hon. Friend has given, I believe that there is more to be elucidated than is possible by Question and answer, and I therefore give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses were completed in Glasgow during the last convenient 12 months' period; and how many are in course of erection.

Four thousand one hundred and fourteen houses were completed in the year ended 28th February, 1951, and 5,915 houses were under construction at that date.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the figure of permanent houses he has given, which means 22,604 apartments, constitutes a post-war record for Glasgow; and will he confirm that this is the highest number of permanent houses built for letting by any local authority in Britain, other than London?

Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman is right.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that this is in no wise a record, and that in 1934 there were 4,485 houses built?

Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that that was the year when the Socialists inherited a progressive programme, and that they have never since touched more than half that figure?

Does my hon. Friend not think that the Glasgow Corporation might make a start with building houses for people who most need them?

Does the hon. Gentleman know why there should be such dismay amongst his hon. Friends at this very good record of Glasgow in house building?

The surprising thing is that the Opposition should be so pleased to learn that we are getting on with house building. The suggestion is always being made that houses cannot be built under the Socialist Government, but the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne) is now claiming that under our policy more houses for letting are being built than ever before.

Is it not true that this rise has only taken place since the ejection of the Socialist Council; and does he not think that this is a very good hint to other cities in Scotland which are short of houses?

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a very shrewd debater, but if he claims that the houses built in 1934 under a Labour administration in Glasgow were due to the progressive policy of the Tories in 1931 and 1932, it surely cannot have escaped his attention that it is only quite recently that the Tories regained control of Glasgow, and perhaps they were fortunate in inheriting the very good work done by the Socialists in the previous year.

Is it not the case that figures for housing in Glasgow have been constantly falling but that they are now showing a rise; and is it not further the case that the Socialists did not leave a single prepared site for the Progressives when they came in?

If the right hon. and gallant Gentlemant wants to compare the housing records of Labour and Tory controlled local authorities, let him compare Glasgow and Edinburgh.

rose—

I think we had better have a cease-fire in the battle of Glasgow.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland were supplied with dentures and spectacles last year; and what is his estimate of the sum likely to be saved next year in Scotland as a result of the Budget proposals.

In the year to 31st March last, just over 400,000 persons were supplied with dentures and just over 750,000 with spectacles. If Parliament passes in the near future the legislation needed for the charges proposed by my right hon. Friend, the saving in Scotland during the financial year now current is expected to exceed £1 million.

Is there any evidence of widespread abuse of these services?

I should not say that there has been widespread abuse of these services, but there has been some abuse.

Since it is obvious that the Scottish people need spectacles to see the present meat ration and dentures with which to eat it, is the saving justified?

As my hon. Friend indicated that there will be a saving of £1 million, could she give any indication of the class of people who will aid us by saving that? Will the old age pensioners be subject to any means test when they make application for spectacles or dentures?

Those who at the present time are receiving national assistance and the majority of the old age pensioners who are on supplementary benefit will still be able to get dentures without cost.

If they are not on national assistance but are dependent entirely on their old age pension or their superannuation, have they to go through a means test in order to qualify?

I suggest that my hon. Friend await the Bill which will be published very soon. Those people who because of financial circumstances are unable to pay will, just as they get other benefits, have this benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for War for what period, and at what rates, additional accommodation allowances are paid to civilian employees on their return to this country from abroad.

An official returning from overseas, if he has no alternative but to occupy hotel type accommodation, is paid subsistence allowance varying from 30s. to 21s. a night for the first seven nights and thereafter 24s. to 17s. a night for a further 21 nights. In exceptional circumstances this period may be extended for a further two months. Appropriate allowances are also admissible for members of his family during this time. Thereafter, an excess rent allowance continuing for an indefinite period may in certain cases be admissible. Under other circumstances other allowances may be payable and if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will let me have details.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what reaction he has had to his approach to the local authorities in regard to giving special consideration to these employees?

I cannot without notice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the difference in pay between a private soldier of the Regular Army and a National Service man serving in Korea.

The pay of a National Service private soldier anywhere depends upon his qualifications and his length of service. If he has served for 18 months or more he is paid at the same rate as a Regular soldier with the same qualifications. If his period of service is shorter he receives a lower rate, generally 3s. a day less. Details of the rates are shown in Army Estimates, 1951–52, pages 184 and 185.

How can the right hon. Gentleman defend in principle paying a private soldier of one class a lower rate of pay than the private soldier of another class who is doing exactly the same job and facing exactly the same dangers?

This question was argued out at great length, and I think that the House, as a whole, took the view that it was reasonable to pay a man who made the Service a life career at a higher rate than the National Service man during the 18 months of his service.

asked the Secretary of State for War if Class Z reservists who are receiving disability pensions are recalled if their rate of disablement is as high as 30 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for War to state the Government's policy in regard to the calling up of disabled men as Class Z reservists.

Notices to join for training inform reservists that if they have a disability pension of 30 per cent. or over they should report the fact and will not be required for training.

Is the Minister aware that many men who have been in touch with the Ministry of Pensions for a 25 per cent. disability pension are being called up, and that was the answer they were given? Can he say whether these men have a medical examination when they arrive at the centre and whether they will draw their pension during their period of service?

They will, of course, be medically examined before their period of training begins.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two of my constituents, one with only one eye, and one with only one leg, have both been called up, and would not it have been simpler not to call these men up in the first instance?

I presume that they have over a 30 per cent. disability pension, and, if so, they will be automatically exempted by that provision.

Does that not show that the Department's re-registration on this matter of the call-up of reservists is not at all satisfactory?

One of the advantages of the present exercise is that it will discover the marginal errors in the matter of re-registration.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will indicate the general grounds of personal hardship arising from the date of Class Z reservists call-up which he considers sufficient to justify a change of the call-up date; and if he will instruct his officials that circumstances which would normally entitle a soldier, stationed in this country, to compassionate leave should at least be sufficient for this purpose.

In many cases it is impracticable to change the date of call-up of a Class Z reservist. Most reservists will train with the particular units with which they would serve in the event of mobilisation, and for which their qualifications make them most suitable. These units are carrying out training at fixed periods throughout the year and if alternative dates for training were granted it would mean that a reservist would have to train with another unit, and one of the main purposes of the training would be defeated.

Where, therefore, it would cause severe personal hardship to a reservist to attend for training during the period given in his warning notice, consideration can in those cases only be given to the possibility of granting exemption from call-up. In view of the varying circumstances of the cases, I cannot attempt to lay down hard-and-fast rules for granting exemption, but the general principle is that exemption is granted if the presence of the reservist at his home is essential. The same criterion is adopted in deciding whether a soldier in this country should be granted compassionate leave.

Do I understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that he will instruct his officials to take a sympathetic attitude to a change of date, or is it because of inconvenience to his Department that they are not prepared to consider these changes?

No, Sir. I can only repeat what I have just said in my answer. In the majority of cases it is not possible to change the date because these men are called up for a particular unit which is holding its camp on that particular date, and the whole camp of the Territorial battalion, or battery, or whatever it is, would have to be changed. Therefore, we must either exempt a man altogether or call him up on that particular date. That is not a universal rule, but it does, I am afraid, apply in the majority of cases, and it is not a question of the convenience or inconvenience of the Department.

Can the Minister say whether decisions in these cases are taken by the Army Record Office concerned or referred to the War Office?

They will be taken in the War Office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is causing great hardship in a number of cases where men are working in large establishments and their holidays have already been allocated, and they may have committed themselves to a certain amount of money which they will lose if he completely refuses to alter the call-up period? Is he also aware that this applies in those cases where a man is urgently needed at home because of his wife's confinement; and that the matter is causing considerable discontent?

I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates the reason, which is not apparent on the surface, we cannot in the great majority of cases change the date. It is a question of either granting an exemption for a man altogether, or calling him up on a particular date.

asked the Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take to trace Class Z reservists when their papers are returned as not at the address to which the call-up notice was sent.

In these cases action will be taken to trace the reservists through the police and through such other channels as are available.

How may of these Class Z reservists have gone abroad, and do they come into the marginal error to which the right hon. Gentleman referred on a previous Question?

I cannot say how many have gone abroad, although I imagine the number is negligible.

What happens if a reservist is in gaol? Is he still called up?

asked the Secretary of State for War why Mr. A. Lafleur received no notification from his Department that he had been selected for recall as a Class Z reservist prior to receiving instructions dated 21st March to report for training on 27th May.

My hon. Friend will, I hope, have now received a reply from my hon. Friend the under-Secretary of State about this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now appoint or designate regional and battalion commanders and cadre staffs for the Home Guard.

Home Commands have been instructed to prepare lists of battalion commanders suitable and willing to accept appointments if and when the Home Guard is raised. It is not possible to consider the earmarking of regional commanders until home commands' orders of battle are completed. With regard to the provision of cadre staffs, I would refer the hon. Member to my statement during the debate on the Army Estimates on 8th March.

If the preliminary arrangements for local commanders, regional commanders, etc., is to wait until war breaks out, surely there will be a very great muddle, instead of having the Service ready?

No, Sir. The lists of battalion commanders, as I have just stated, are being made up now.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that answer that it is his intention, as soon as he receives these recommendations, to make appointments, because surely he realises that until appointments are made, no effective preparatory planning can be done?

No, Sir. As I have said, this is a question of preparing lists and not of making the actual appointments. I do not agree that no effective preparatory planning can be done in these circumstances.

How can the right hon. Gentleman prepare lists of persons for possible jobs without asking them whether they are willing to serve, or without taking into account whether they are offering their services elsewhere?

I have made no statement that they will not be asked whether they will be willing to serve; they will be asked.

Will they be informed that they will be on the lists?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether London allowance, to meet the extra expense of working in London, is paid to every officer, including officers of the Household Brigade, whose place of duty is within 10 miles of Charing Cross, and who is not provided with public accommodation.

Yes, Sir, provided they are not receiving travelling expenses between their residence and duty station, nor nightly rates of travelling allowance.

What is the rate of this allowance, and does the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that living in London is very much more expensive for those doing duties there, whether provided with public quarters or not?

I will write to the hon. and gallant Member on the rates of the London allowance; but I think it is a fair allowance.

asked the Secretary of State for War for what purpose it is proposed to establish a Women's Staff College; where this college will be situated; in what branches of staff duties will instruction be given to the women students; and what is the estimated annual cost of the college.

The Women's Royal Army Corps Staff College is being established at Frimley Park, Camberley, in order to train officers for Women's Royal Army Corps appointments and to replace male officers in second and third grade staff appointments in static headquarters. Instruction will be given in those branches of staff duties which are chiefly useful to the administrative staff officer. The annual cost of the college on the basis at present contemplated is estimated at £20,000.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the fighting efficiency of the Army will benefit from the employment of these women staff officers? Can this extra expenditure be justified at this time of financial stringency, when the expenditure of every 6d. is a matter of importance?

I should have thought that the fighting efficiency of the Army would be increased precisely by releasing male officers for combatant and other such duties and by having their present duties done by women officers.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of £20,000. Can he say in round figures—he knows what I mean—how many women this will include?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what staff grade appointments are envisaged?

I cannot give the list without notice.

What is the estimated cost per student week?

I could not say without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions between the commencement of the Korean campaign and 1st April, 1951, our troops enjoyed 98 oz. of fresh or frozen American meat per week.

I have called for this information and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he thoroughly misled the House when he said that our soldiers are receiving 98 oz. of meat, when he does not even know whether they have had it once? Have they had it once, twice or 10 times?

We must get the information from Korea, as the hon. and gallant Member must realise, to say on how many occasions they have had it.

Is it not most important that the soldier who is fighting should have sufficient meat? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot provide it in this country, it is his job to see that the Americans provide it.

asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the provision of American fresh meat for our troops in Korea is paid for by the Exchequer; and what is the cost per ton.

So far, no bills have been received in respect of goods or services provided by the United States forces to the British Army in Korea.

Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that he will pay less per ton for this meat than the price at which the Minister of Food has managed to buy meat from the Argentine?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can out line his policy for the replacement of troops fighting in Korea; how long, for instance, troops so posted are retained there; and whether they are to be brought back to the United Kingdom when relieved.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) on 10th April.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers will be coming home?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for War why his policy of last July, which was not to post National Service men to Korea excepting under exceptional circumstances, has been changed.

The policy which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence announced on 27th July, 1950, was that no soldier under 19 years of age would be sent to Korea. At that time the period of whole-time National Service was 18 months and it would have been impracticable to send National Service men to Korea since they would have been able to serve there for only a few months. My right hon. Friend therefore explained that this decision meant that no National Service men would be sent to Korea except in very exceptional circumstances, and in order to raise 29th Infantry Brigade Group to establishment a number of Regular reservists were recalled. As from 1st October last the period of National Service was extended to two years, and it thus became practicable to use National Service men for service in Korea. It has not been possible to find all the reinforcements necessary to maintain our forces in Korea from serving Regular soldiers and it has been decided that the balance should be found from National Service men rather than by recalling further Regular reservists. National Service men are drafted to Korea only after they have attained 19 years of age and completed adequate training.

Would it not have been wiser to have made a statement of that kind earlier? Am I right in assuming now that men in the National Service groups have not got to volunteer for Korea, but that they are called up as and when the War Office decides and dispatched to Korea? In future, will the right hon. Gentleman keep the House fully informed as to changes of plans after pledges have been given?

No, Sir. There have been no changes of plan, and National Service men have been fighting in Korea with the 27th Brigade, for example, since early last autumn. This has been announced in the House and discussed by the House on many occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that as a result of the imposition of the age limit in connection with the scheme for the establishment of temporary clerks as clerical assistants, 18 temporary civil servants in Bordon Garrison will still continue to be employed in a temporary capacity; and whether, in view of the fact that some of the individuals concerned have been employed already for as long as 10 years and are ex-Regular Service men, he will reconsider the present arrangements with a view to placing more of them on the established list.

The scheme for the establishment of temporary clerks as clerical assistants is a national scheme. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) on 10th April.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the hardship caused to very many old soldiers who are affected by this scheme, and is he aware of the very strong feelings caused by it among ex-soldiers?

We cannot contract out of the general scheme for the Civil Service. I think that a question on the general scheme should be addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the official statement made in Washington by Lieut.-General Sir Richard Gale, Director General of Training, to the effect that Soviet intervention in the Korean conflict would be welcome because it would provide the British forces with an opportunity of killing Russians; why an officer whose views are not in accordance with the aims of the United Nations and His Majesty's Government has been sent on an official mission to Washington; and what steps have been taken to discipline him.

asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the official statement made by Lieut.-General Sir Richard Gale, at Washington, on 6th April, on the subject of the war in Korea; and to what extent it has his approval.

As soon as reports of General Gale's alleged statement were received inquiries were made as to whether it represented correctly what he had said. A telegram has now been received from General Gale which reads as follows:

"I categorically deny statement. My remarks were made with reference to intervention by MIG aircraft and not (repeat not) to Russians. Thus I deny emphatically the statement as it stands."

While welcoming very strongly that denial of a statement which has done a tremendous amount of harm because it has been quoted and misquoted throughout the world, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether any steps were taken by the British Information Services in America to get the statement denied as soon as this telegram was received and to check with the journalists concerned?

The telegram from Lieut.-General Gale has only just been received. I think that the best start to the denial of the accuracy of the report is made by my statement in the House today.

Is not Lieut.-General Gale still in America, and in those circumstances how is it possible that he could allow this statement to be made all over America while he was there without denying it?

I cannot say what other statements Lieut.-General Gale may have made, but we made these inquiries of him and he made this very categorical denial to us.

Would not this Question have come rather better from the hon. Member who asked it, if he supported the foreign policy designed to prevent the Russians from killing us?

Too stupid to answer.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, after having perused the court-martial proceedings in the case of Driver Fargie, he is now prepared to make a full statement.

I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Hon. Members will now have had an opportunity to study the full text of the proceedings of the trial of Driver Fargie, which I placed in the Library last week. I wish to make the following general observations upon this case.

First: I cannot doubt but that anyone who reads these proceedings will conclude that Driver Fargie had a fair and just trial.

Second: I also cannot doubt that hon. Members will conclude that the tragic event on the night of 30th November, 1950, in Taegu, made it indispensable to hold this court-martial and to bring the accused to trial. In order to appreciate this necessity one has only to envisage what the position would have been if this court-martial had not been held. In that event it would have appeared that a South Korean civilian had been shot by a British soldier in the streets of a Korean city many miles behind the front in undetermined circumstances, and that no effort had been made to clear the matter up and establish responsibility for the tragedy. I trust that a time will never come when it will be considered a small or light thing if a British soldier kills a civilian inhabitant of a country in which our forces have to operate—even if it is subsequently found that he has done so unintentionally or innocently.

Third: Having made these general comments, I trust that hon. Members will think that it would be quite wrong for me to express an opinion either about the finding of the court or about the subsequent non-confirmation of that finding by the Commander-in-Chief, British Commonwealth Occupation Forces. Reading the proceedings has reinforced my opinion of the impossibility of attempting to retry these cases in our minds without the advantages and possibilities enjoyed by the court—without, to take one example, seeing and hearing the witnesses. And as for confirmation or non-confirmation of the finding, that is essentially something which it is the right of the Commander-in-Chief, British Commonwealth Occupation Forces, to decide upon, in the light of all the advice, legal and otherwise, avilable to him.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the most serious fact which emerges from these proceedings is the antiquity of the law on the liability of a sentry placed on duty? Therefore, as these proceedings show that both the prosecuting and the defending counsel referred to laws and cases which are now something like 150 years old on which this soldier stood trial for his life, does he not think that he ought to consult the Law Officers to see that some clearer definition of the law relating to sentries is made?

As I understand it, the principle is that a soldier is still a citizen and is subject to the common law of this country. On the other hand, it is of course a defence for a sentry that he acted in accordance with his orders if those orders were legal and within the law. That is the legal position as it stands today. It is possible to argue that the legal position should be changed, but that is what it is and what it has been for many years.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what actually was the charge, or what were the charges, on which Driver Fargie was tried? I do not think they have ever been published in any account. Would he further tell the House whether Driver Fargie was or was not on sentry duty?

As to the first part of the question, I really think that hon. Members should read the proceedings for themselves. As to the second part of the question, that is precisely a matter which was acutely disputed between the prosecution and the defence in the trial. If I were to express an opinion about it now, I should be attempting to re-try it here. It is clear from the evidence of the court—though it is not even clear whether they accepted it—that they considered that the shot was fired illegally.

Does it not appear from the evidence that this sentry was not properly instructed at all what his duties were? That came out clearly at the trial. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that some clearer definition should be given to commanders in particular as to what the liabilities of a sentry are, particularly on active service?

Again, the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question is a subject which was acutely disputed in the proceedings. On the second part of the Question, we have once again written round, as I have already told the House, to all commanding officers, but their instructions to sentries must vary in different theatres and in different conditions. One cannot lay down rigid instructions which they must all follow.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that by far the most serious feature of this case and the Linsell case was the deliberate misrepresentation of the case by sections of the Press, who sought to give the impression that it was shooting in the course of the sentry's duties? Does he not think that he might say something on this aspect of the matter, in view of the alarm it might cause to the families of soldiers in Korea?

I cannot sufficiently deplore uninformed comment on these cases before the facts are fully known. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already warned certain newspapers that their comments in this case were in contempt. Comments, now that the case is over, are perfectly legal and proper, but I would implore responsible members of the Press not to comment upon these cases without acquainting themselves very fully of the facts, which are, as the hon. Member says, very different indeed, as any hon. Member can see for himself, from those which have been represented in the public Press.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement show once again how unsatisfactory the law is which places upon a sentry the obligation of deciding whether an order was legal before he can know whether it is his duty to carry it out?

This is a very difficult legal point and we must put the responsibility upon responsible officers who place guards to give orders which are legal.

Was it not in fact shown, both in the case of Linsell and of Fargie, that, in the opinion of the court, at the time the shot was fired the men were not on sentry duty?

I do not think I am entitled to say that now. In the case of Fargie that was one of the things which were acutely disputed. The prosecution submitted that Fargie was not on sentry duty. We do not know, and we are not entitled to say, what particular pieces of evidence the court accepted, or would not accept, when they brought in the finding guilty of manslaughter.

While we must accept the statement that the killing of a friendly civilian must always be cleared up, is it not the case that this can very often be done by a court of inquiry without necessarily proceeding to a prosecution on a charge of manslaughter?

Certainly, Sir, but in this case the competent authorities there called for a court-martial, and, after all, we must take into account the fact that the court-martial—it was hardly likely that, as it consisted of British officers it would be prejudiced against a British soldier on trial—brought in a finding of manslaughter. I do not think we can possibly suggest that the authorities on the spot were wrong to hold that court-martial in view of its results.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that in recent years duties for sentries have tended to become more and more complex and more difficult to get into one's mind, certainly in times of emergency? Furthermore, do standing orders and unit orders take into account more modern military activities such as infiltration behind one's own lines?

That may be, but I do not think it has any application to the present case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state explicitly that the Attorney-General's warning was conveyed to the "Daily Express," which invited the public to re-try the case?

The warning was expressed in this House for all to hear, and it was a very serious warning.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had warned the papers.

I think that an explicit statement given by the Attorney-General in this House that the papers in question were in contempt of court could hardly be a more serious warning. I should like to repeat that I think that newspapers which attempt, either during the proceedings or after them, and without a proper account of the facts, to create prejudice against a court-martial, and therefore against the officers who have to undertake this always ungrateful but absolutely indispensable duty, are doing a very great disservice.

In regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Angus Maude), about courts of inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that they are held in private and, if higher authority wishes it, they are normally not held in open court, the public have no right of access, and the findings may be treated as confidential whenever higher authority so wishes, and that therefore a court of inquiry cannot serve the purpose which a court-martial serves of allaying public anxiety?

That is a very valid point. I think that the court-martial, which is held in public unless security considerations make it necessary to do otherwise, is, in many cases at any rate, an indispensable feature.

Is not the real trouble that newspapers, possibly through lack of space, are apt to give publicity to what they consider to be news and do not really give anything like a full account of either the charges or the proceedings? Would it not simplify the problem very much if in the case of open court proceedings the right hon. Gentleman were to cause a summary of the proceedings to be circulated to the Press?

asked the Secretary of State for War what equipment the War Department vessel "Snider" has dumped in Hurds Deep off the Channel Isles in March; and whether he will make a statement about the equipment being dumped in this and other areas since 1945.

The "Snider" is an Admiralty vessel. I understand that during March she dumped 25 tons of unserviceable ammunition in Hurds Deep. Since 1945 the War Department has made arrangements on its own behalf and on the behalf of the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply for dumping 400,000 tons of German ammunition in Hurds Deep; 100,000 tons of chemical weapons in the Atlantic; and over 400,000 tons of unserviceable ammunition in Beau-forts Dyke, Mull of Galloway. The first two operations were completed in 1946 and 1949 respectively. Further quantities of ammunition still remain to be disposed of by the War Department in the Mull of Galloway.

Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that nothing other than ammunition has been dumped by this ship? Is he quite satisfied that the ammunition could not be made use of for scrap of any kind whatsoever?