asked the Minister of Defence how far expenditure on the armed Forces and defence is expected to fall short of the amount budgeted in the current financial year.

As I stated in the course of the Defence Debate on 6th December, we shall not succeed in spending the£1,250 million originally budgeted for in the current financial year. I am not yet in a position to estimate accurately how far expenditure will fall short of that figure.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister made the very uncompromising statement that we would not reach the target, can he give us some indication of the calculations on which he based his statement?

I have nothing to add to my answer.

asked the Minister of Defence whether instructions have now been issued to all concerned that marching parties of all Service personnel are to carry red lights at the rear of such parties, with rearguards at a suitably-spaced interval.

Yes, Sir. All three Service Departments have now issued instructions prescribing that when personnel are marching on roads in formed bodies, look-out men shall be posted at a suitable distance in front and rear and shall carry lanterns at night. This meets, I think, the point which the Leader of the Opposition himself made.

Would it not be simpler to observe the Highway Code, which suggests that people walking on roads that have no pathways should walk on the right-hand side and face on-coming traffic?

I would not venture to deal with such technical matters at such short notice.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the reduced stocks of 303 rifles.

As I stated in the Defence Debate on 6th December last, we had over 5 million rifles at the end of the war and we now have rather less than half that number. The stocks at the end of the war included about 1 million American rifles of various types; the present stocks include about 300,000, 303 rifles which have been produced since the war. More than 3 million therefore have been disposed of in one way or another.

Of these, nearly 1 million have gone to Allied and Commonwealth countries, about 800,000 were handed over to India, Pakistan and Burma on the withdrawal of our forces, and about 500,000 are accounted for by wastage in Palestine, Korea and other overseas theatres and by destruction in a serious fire at Weedon Ordnance Depot in 1950. The bulk of the remaining 950,000, which were considered to be beyond repair, were disposed of as scrap.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures showing the number of these rifles that were handed to the Egyptian Government?

I will certainly endeavour to have that figure looked out. It might be of interest to both sides of the House.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement on the arrangements contemplated in connection with the Joint Atlantic Command.

I propose to refer to this matter when I make my statement to the House at the end of Questions.

Has the change in policy created any embarrassment for the Prime Minister.

I think I might be permitted to give my own answer to the Question. I trust that it caused no embarrassment to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Defence his estimate of the total sum spent on our armed forces in Egypt since the commencement of our dispute with the Egyptian Government.

I have given directions that the best estimate possible is to be prepared, but the accounting is complicated and may take some time.

Will the Prime Minister explain why£5 million was released during the course of this expenditure from Egyptian sterling balances? It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to finance the Egyptian Government at the same time?

This is not a question which can be answered on the spur of the moment across the Floor of the House; but any Question on this subject will receive a detailed reply from the Minister concerned. Very great restrictions have been imposed upon the withdrawal of sterling balances.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Defence, Field-Marshal Lord Alexander, will be responsible for advising the Government on military matters, and who will answer Questions on defence in the House.

When Lord Alexander becomes Minister of Defence on 1st March, the present arrangement will continue whereby the Chiefs of Staff advise the Minister of Defence, and, through him, the Government as a whole, on military matters. A Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence will be appointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "More money."] We may even beat the record of the party opposite, but it will be by a very short head. A Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence will be appointed who will be responsible for answering Questions and for dealing with Departmental matters in the House on behalf of the Minister. I will myself, when necessary, take part in any major defence debate.

Is it not very difficult, where a very distinguished soldier is acting as a Minister and transmitting the views of the Chiefs of Staff, to see who is the real adviser? Surely, that is a confusion quite contrary to our British system.

No, Sir. I do not think that any difficulty will arise from that. There are lots of people who have been employed in political office who have had professional military experience. Even I myself was nearly five years a cadet and a lieutenant in the Army, and I have frequently interfered in civilian matters. I do not think any difficulties will arise.

Lord Alexander is, of course, a civilian—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—retired from the Army and has had a very honourable interval of nearly seven years' service, entirely remote from the military profession and in Canada. I cannot feel that any difficulty will arise on that matter. On the contrary, I think that all concerned will feel reinforced by his presence and advice.

rose—

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt.

While casting no reflection whatever on the qualities of Lord Alexander, who stands extremely high in the opinion of everybody, may I ask if there is not a great difficulty in a high-ranking officer who has held very high command, quite distinct from people who may have had temporary service in war, being the official member of the Government in competition, so to speak, with the Chiefs of Staff, who have not really had his experience?

I do not think there could be any question of competition between the Minister of Defence and the Chiefs of Staff. Certainly, it would be very disastrous if there were. There may be difficulties which arise from time to time, but they are always settled, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from long experience, by discussions in the Cabinet Committee on Defence or in the Cabinet itself.

Do I understand that there is to be an Under-Secretary for Defence? I understood that detailed Questions were always answered by Service Ministers. The whole point of a Minister of Defence is that it is not a matter of detailed administration but of main questions of policy.

During the war the handling machine, through which I, as Minister of Defence, dealt with quite a lot of things that were going on, was a very small-scale affair, but the right hon. Gentleman created, at very great expense, a very large and powerful Ministry, which we have somewhat reduced in scale by economies but which, nevertheless, has many functions attached to it of a special character—for instance, all the intelligence of the three Services, and so forth. It is a very important Ministry that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) held. I certainly feel that all routine and ordinary Questions—the Departmental Questions—ought to be dealt with in the House by a Minister acting directly under the instructions of the Minister of Defence. On the other hand, if very large issues arise, I am quite prepared to submit myself to the House to assist in the matter.

Will the Prime Minister not agree that if he had not appointed a person who sits, or will sit, in the other place, it would have been unnecessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary? Is it the intention to continue what is known as the Defence Committee, and who will preside over it? Will it be the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister?

Normally, the Defence Committee will be presided over by the Minister of Defence, but the Prime Minister himself can take the chair if he desires. That always was so in the old Committee of Imperial Defence, which has been superseded by the modern structure. With regard to the question of the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman should be careful, because he may find himself there some day.

indicated dissent.

There are great arguments whether there should be such personalities as hereditary Peers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but the differences between parties have been greatly assuaged by the conduct of the late Administration.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but would he be a little less academic about the other place and reply to my question, which I repeat: Would he not agree that if it had been unnecessary to appoint to this very high post someone who will have to sit in another place, he would not have found it necessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary?

The economy of a Parliamentary Secretary would in itself be an advantage, but that advantage is very small compared to choosing the best man—

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman find one out of that lot opposite?

—for one of the most—[Interruption.]—for one of the most responsible positions in the State. I consider that that should also be brought into consideration, as well as the salary of an additional Under-Secretary. As to anyone from the House of Lords being so appointed, I again think that that is outweighed by choosing the person who is believed to be best fitted for the job.

Is it not a fact that under the terms of the Defence White Paper the primary responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff is to advise the Cabinet on matters of strategy?

To which White Paper is the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring?

The 1947 White Paper. While Lord Alexander may be highly qualified to be a Chief of Staff, is it not, preferable—in fact, highly desirable—that the Minister of Defence should be a politician? Is it not highly undesirable that a Service mind should come between the three Service advisers and the Cabinet?

I should be far from showing any want of respect to the trade union feelings which must prevail among politicians, but I cannot feel that that should over-ride the arguments I have already ventured to deploy.

rose—

Order. This really is becoming a debate.

You did in fact call my name, Mr. Speaker, but I gave way to the Leader of the Opposition.

That is quite true. Mr. Wyatt.

Has not the Prime Minister made a mistake in describing Lord Alexander as a civilian? Lord Alexander is a field-marshal and therefore cannot resume civilian status. Is it not most unfortunate that the Prime Minister has revived a precedent which has not before been followed since the unfortunate entry of the Duke of Wellington into politics by putting a field-marshal into his Cabinet, and will he reconsider the decision, which is indeed repugnant to our Parliamentary system of democracy?

The fact that he is a field-marshal was not considered any obstacle to Lord Alexander's appointment and tenure, prolonged tenure, under the party opposite, of the office of Governor-General of Canada.

We must really bring this to a conclusion and get on.