asked the Minister of Defence whether he will give the latest estimates of the strengths of the armed services of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its satellites together with their period of national service.

I have been asked to reply.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In view of the possibility that these figures are quite large, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Soviet Union maintains these forces for its own defence or for the subjugation of the countries of Eastern Europe?

That is a large question which, no doubt, will be discussed in the coming talks.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will include technical education other than secondary education for qualification for the annual education allowance, in view of the Government policy to encourage technical education; and what the cost of such an extension would be.

I have been asked to reply.

The suggestion put forward in my hon. Friend's Question was examined when the scheme for education allowances was drawn up. The conclusion reached was that the considerations which justified the introduction of allowances for children receiving secondary education did not apply to further education. My right hon. and learned Friend sees no reason to dissent from that conclusion.

I cannot give any useful estimate of the cost of such an extension of the present scheme.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is the policy of the Government to encourage technical education and the more important type of education is that which goes on after secondary education rather than during that time? Would he not therefore reconsider this point, because it is quite idiotic to say that we should encourage people to take technical education so long as they do not get too good at it?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of technical education, but what is suggested in this Question is that the children of members of the Services should be put in an advantageous position in relation to other children in this matter.

Is not the proper phrase to use something which implies that they are entitled to this grant for the whole time they are undergoing full-time education?

asked the Minister of Defence what effect the new pay codes have had on recruiting.

I have been asked to reply.

The new rates of pay have only been in force since 1st April. It is much too soon to reach any conclusions about their effect on recruiting, but present indications are encouraging.

Will the Minister say whether they are up to expectations so far? Does he think that further action will be necessary to reduce the period of National Service or to get rid of conscription altogether during the next two or three years?

The length of National Service is a different question. We have had these new rates only since 1st April and there have been the Easter holidays. I do not think it possible to draw a fair conclusion.

May I ask the Minister whether it is not the fact that in the last few weeks the Army intake increase has been 250 per week; that the Royal Air Force intake has been four times as great as last year, and the Navy now estimate that half the 10,000 people about to retire this year are signing on again? If he takes all those things into consideration, would not he agree that there is a case for reconsidering the whole question of National Service now?

As I said, the matter of National Service is a rather larger question. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman are for some classes. Certain engagements have gone up and certain others have not.

asked the Minister of Defence what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Government of Western Germany on the cost of British troops in that country during the present financial year.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the negotiations with the German Federal Government on a German contribution to the cost of maintaining British Forces in Germany.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the West German Government's refusal to pay the cost, as was anticipated under the Paris Agreements, British troops in Germany will be withdrawn.

I have been asked to reply.

As negotiations on this matter are in progress I should prefer to make no statement for the present.

Will the Government represent very strongly to the German Government that the British taxpayer really cannot be asked to take on a large part of this burden at a time when Germany is still unable to defend itself, and when direct taxation is lower in Germany than it is here?

Our case will certainly be forcefully put.

Is it not clear that we have once again been diddled by the Germans, against whom we have no legal claim because of the slovenly wording of the Paris Agreements? Has not the time come to cut our losses for the sake of the British taxpayer, and let the Germans defend themselves?

As the Germans clearly will not have a large army for several years, and as they have practically stopped paying for British forces, can the right hon. Member say what has happened to the much-vaunted benefits of the Paris Agreements?

Is the £50 million contribution, for which I understand we have asked the Germans, included in the Budget estimates which the Chancellor presented to us yesterday? If it is, what hope is there of realising it?

I should want notice of that question.

I want to pursue that point. Can the Minister confirm the statement made in that eminently Tory newspaper, the Financial Times, to the effect that the Germans have a reserve of £350 million which they have saved in past years upon their anticipated costs of occupation? Is that money still available? If so, why should not the German Government be pressed to release it, in order to pay a subsidy towards the cost of our troops?

The Germans are being pressed to fulfil their obligations.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is aware that the increase of non-attributable widows' pensions for lieutenants and captains by 255 per cent. and 230 per cent., respectively, over 1939, sitll leaves the beneficiaries eligible for National Assistance in many cases; and if he will, therefore, take steps to raise the recent 5 per cent. increase to 10 per cent. in accordance with the uniform increases under the Pensions Increase Acts and the Royal Warrant.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. and learned Friend explained to my hon. Friend in his letter of 28th March why it is proposed to make a 5 per cent. increase in the "ordinary" pensions of officers' widows. I have nothing to add to that letter.

In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend rightly took such credit for increasing the prosperity of the industrial worker, could the Secretary of State say why he is treating these widows in the meanest of mean ways? Is it because they have no big battalions to ride the Minister down?

I should hesitate to intervene between my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend in such a deep and painful subject as that of the non-attributable widow. I think that my hon. Friend will have to fight it out with him.

asked the Minister of Defence how many graduate scientists and technologists of equivalent standing are employed in defence establishments of all kinds.

I have been asked to reply.

Approximately 7,500 graduate scientists and technologists of equivalent standing are employed in a civilian capacity in defence establishments. In addition, there are approximately 3,000 men with such qualifications undergoing National Service. The number of Regular officers and men in all three Services who have scientific qualifications of this standard is not readily available.

May I take it that that figure includes those in the Ministry of supply as well as those in the Services? Secondly, in view of the grave shortage of these people in civilian industry, research and teaching institutions, what check is placed upon the requirements of the Services and the Ministry of Supply for these men?

The figure does include the men in the Ministry of Supply. The reply to the second part of the question is that the check comes through the total budgetary sum allowed by the Chancellor for research and development.

If 3,000 of the number to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are engaged in National Service and also scientific pursuits in the Services, are not the Government getting these men on the cheap? Why should they be called up for National Service and paid only 4s. 6d. a day when, as civilians, they would get the proper rate?

That argument might well apply not only to scientists but to historians, and any other class of people one might think of. Everybody does National Service.

The real problem here, upon which I want the Minister to focus, is the fact that the Services seem to be taking too large a share of our scientific manpower of which we are very short. Is he aware that it is not enough to rely upon mere budgetary controls?

I appreciate the hon. Member's point. I think that he is pursuing it with the Minister of Labour.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) the sum that has been spent on the Armed Forces in Cyprus since the decision to establish the Middle East base there instead of in Suez;

(2) his estimate of the weekly sum that is now being spent on the Armed Forces in Cyprus.

I have been asked to reply.

The amount spent on the three Services in Cyprus since 1st July, 1954, is about £20 million. The weekly expenditure is now about £390,000. These figures exclude the cost of unit equipment.

As the process of deportation of the Archbishop was carried out in order to create law and order, can the Minister say whether the cost of maintaining law and order has gone down since the Archbishop was deported?

Is the Minister going to answer? Does he really understand the implications of the question, which is that the Suez base has been transferred to Cyprus? Would he say that we now have a base in Cyprus rather than that we have transferred the Suez base to Cyprus?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is still a base in the Suez Canal zone which is run by civilians.

That does not answer my question. I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer the military implications of the question. The Suez base is one thing and the Cyprus base is another. The Question makes it appear as if they are the same thing. Does he think that they are?

Obviously they are not the same thing.

That is not answering the Question. The right hon. Gentleman cannot evade it in that way. Does he consider that the Suez base, as we understood it, has been transferred to Cyprus.

Obviously the whole shooting match has not gone there, as I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that there is any argument about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what organised suggestion scheme is in operation in his Department; how many suggestions are received from employees through that organisation annually; how many are adopted; what awards are made for such suggestions; and what he estimates to be the savings made by the adoption of employees' suggestions.

No organised suggestions scheme has so far been instituted in the Foreign Office. The desirability of instituting such a scheme is now under consideration.

Having regard to the Chancellor's statement that he desires to make an economy of £100 million in Government expenditure, does my right hon. Friend realise the economies which can be made through organised suggestion schemes? Will he look into those which are being operated successfully in some of the other Government Departments?

Yes. I will certainly bear that point in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion of the information officers employed abroad by his Department have had practical training in journalism or advertising.

Out of 86 overseas information officers held on the United Kingdom-based establishment of the Foreign Office, 27 have Press or advertising experience.

Does my right hon. Friend think that that is satisfactory? Should not the very great majority of them have had some journalistic or advertising experience? Is not that what is needed to put over propaganda?

I think that that point can be driven too far. I think that what is needed to explain diplomacy to the Press is a knowledge of diplomacy rather than a knowledge of the Press.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protests he has made to the Government of Iraq against their action in refusing to clear medical supplies exported by a British firm, the name of which has been sent to him, until the firm satisfies the Iraq Government that none of its directors or managers are Jews.

This case, which is a manifestation of the Arab League boycott, has been taken up with the Iraqi Embassy in London. The views of Her Majesty's Government on all aspects of this boycott have repeatedly been made known to the Arab Governments concerned. As the House is aware, we neither accept nor condone it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement that the House welcomes the rather firmer declaration made this afternoon than that which was made by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday? Will he make it utterly clear to the Arab countries that in this country we do not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles, all of whom we regard as honourable and valuable citizens; and also that the Arab countries invite retaliation if they try to set up this kind of commercial ghetto in Great Britain?

I think the views of Her Majesty's Government on this matter have been made very clearly known to the Iraqi Government and other Governments.

Would the right hon. Gentleman also point out to those who are being blackmailed, or have been threatened with blackmail, by the Egyptian Government and other Arab States, that a similar threat was made to Germany by the Arab States, at the time when the Reparations Agreement with Israel was being considered—that they would boycott Germany if she agreed to pay reparations for the material damage done by Germany; that the Germans defied that threat, and that nevertheless the Arab States did not proceed with the boycott; and that a similar threat against Holland was ignored with similar results; so that traders will know that they should not succumb to intimidation?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is to be taken by Her Majesty's Government through the United Nations to deal with the worsening situation on the Israeli-Egyptian borders; and to make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the position in the Middle East.

The Security Council unanimously adopted a Resolution on 4th April requesting the Secretary-General to investigate the situation and to arrange for the adoption of measures to reduce existing tensions. Mr. Hammarskjöld is now in the Middle East, and his mission has the full support of Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that further action through the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government at the moment would be helpful.

Hon. Members, however, will have read the statement issued yesterday by the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This statement requires careful study. While there are some evident misstatements and inconsistencies in it, Her Majesty's Government nevertheless welcome Soviet emphasis on the need to preserve peace and to reach an Arab-Israeli settlement—and I quote the words—

"on a mutually acceptable basis, taking due consideration of the just national interests of the interested parties."

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the comment made by Mr. Molotov yesterday that the statement to which the Foreign Secretary has just referred might well form the basis of discussions with the Russian leaders during the next few days on this problem of the Middle East?

I have stated our view with regard to what the Russians have said.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of us, in fact all of us, on this side of the House, welcome the Russian declaration, and hope that it will lead to a satisfactory conclusion as the result of further consultations? Can he also say whether, as the result of the visit of Mr. Hammarskjöld to the Middle East there is evidence of a more reasonable attitude on both sides?

It is very fortunate that at this very critical time the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been there. I am certain that his presence has helped to reduce tension. It is premature, however, to be too optimistic about his mission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the recently-announced policy of the United States Administration, as a signatory of the Tripartite Agreement, no longer to object to Israel purchasing arms from countries other than the United States of America, he will now make British arms available if requested.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the current fighting in the Gaza strip, he will now recommend allowing the export of arms from Britain to Israel.

There is no current ban on the supply of arms to Israel or to neighbouring Arab States. In authorising particular consignments, Her Majesty's Government have regard to their obligations under the Tripartite Declaration.

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a peace guaranteed by the United Nations which included the Soviet Union as guarantors would be better than an arms race between two countries both of whom are poor and cannot afford to buy arms in these quantities? May we assume that in the forthcoming talks, just referred to by the Minister in answer to the last Question, this point will be put very strongly? If there is no success, may we have an assurance that Israel's demand for arms will be met?

As I have said, we seek to carry out our obligations under the Tripartite Declaration, which deals with the question of the provision of arms and specifically talks about the avoidance of an arms race. We have tried in our arms policy, to avoid an arms race. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt yesterday with the question of the actual conduct of the forthcoming discussions.

Does not the Tripartite Declaration explicitly commit this country to maintain a balance of arms between the Arabs and Israel? Is not the supply of arms to Israel the only effective way at this moment to provide Israel with that security which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) so rightly said a day or two ago was the moral duty as well as the legal obligation of this country to provide?

On the supply of arms, I have always agreed that it must be our purpose to try to preserve a balance, but it would be exceedingly dangerous to lead either side to believe that its only hope of safety was in arms. We have to continue our efforts to get an agreed solution, working through the United Nations.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend given further consideration to the point that I sought to raise a few days ago about the desirability of seeking assistance from the United States and France, both signatories to the Tripartite Declaration, in the establishment of staff talks now with Israel and Arab States, including Egypt?

I think that an attempt to institute such talks at the present time with both sides might cause more rather than fewer complications, and it is very doubtful whether we should get the confidence of both sides.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Press of this country and of the United States is almost unanimous in saying, rightly or wrongly, that the part of the Tripartite Declaration which envisages a possible intervention by United States, France and Britain is a dead letter? Is there not a dangerous tendency that we may fall between all these different stools—providing Israel with arms, making it clear that we will intervene, and the possibility of United Nations intervention—and could we not make certain that at least one of these remedies is effective?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we would prefer, if we can, to get aggression dealt with through the United Nations. Apart from that, we stick to the point that there has been no change in our policy with regard to the obligations laid down in the Tripartite Declaration.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the statement made by Mr. Ben Gurion that Israel would give two blows for every one received? In the light of that statement, will he give an assurance that he will not be led into taking action which is designed purely as political propaganda in the Middle East?

I can only repeat that we shall try to carry out our obligations in regard to the supply of arms as indicated in the Tripartite Declaration.

In view of the Minister's original Answer that there is no specific ban on arms, may we take it that if the Israeli Government asked for fighters, which are essentially defensive weapons, that request might reasonably be considered?

I have already said that I will not give particulars in regard to particular arms.

asked the Seceretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in connection with the pledge of Her Majesty's Government to intervene in any case of aggression between the Arab States and Israel, what arrangements he is making to enable an aggressor to be effectively determined in cases such as those now occurring on the Israeli frontier.

The investigation of border incidents, and the determination of responsibility for such acts as have been occurring recently, are matters for the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, as the House knows, is now on the spot with a mandate which enables him to investigate these arrangements. He will report to the Security Council. It would not be right for me to say anything which might prejudge Mr. Hammarskjöld's recommendations.

Whatever the outcome, is it not clear that in this sort of incident we shall never be able to determine effectively which side is the aggressor, because by the time we have determined that, the incident may be a full-scale war, with one side the winner and the other the loser? Would it not be better, whatever the outcome of the mission, that we should make clear exactly what we mean by this pledge?

The work of the super visory commission is very important Certain procedures are laid down for determining and deterring aggression. If the hon. Gentleman will examine, for example, the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution at the United Nations in 1950, he will see certain procedures laid down which may be used to determine the aggressor. That is one way in which we might seek to do it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will associate Her Majesty's Government with the recent official pledge of President Eisenhower to support and assist any nation in the Middle East which is subject to aggression.

Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have warmly welcomed President Eisenhower's statement.

Would the Foreign Secretary make it clear that the new statement of policy is not in any sense a derogation of the commitments contained in the 1950 Declaration, and that, in fact, the 1950 Declaration is still considered as being binding upon both Governments?

Certainly, there has been no change in the view of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Tripartite Declaration, nor, so far as I am aware, in the view of the other two Governments.

Could we have at some time an indication of how this Declaration is to be implemented?

I think it would be quite impossible to indiciate in advance particular methods by which it is proposed to carry out obligations. I think it would be very dangerous.

Is it not implicit in the President's statement that the Tripartite Declaration is now superseded by what he said?

The Declaration deals with action both in the United Nations and without it. There has been a certain emphasis on action within the United Nations, but that does not remove the possibility of action without it.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that there is a dangerous degree of vagueness appertaining to the Tripartitte Declaration, and will he continue to press upon the American Government the desirability of their immediate adherence to the Bagdad Pact as being something which would do more than anything else to restore stability in that part of the world?

The view of Her Majesty's Government in regard to American membership of the Bagdad Pact is, I think, already known. As for indicating more clearly what action should be taken to carry out obligations, it is necessary for us to view these matters with the other two signatories. It seems to me that any attempt to define exactly what action should be taken in a variety of circumstances would never be feasible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of refugees who have entered free Berlin from Eastern Germany in the last twelve months.

One hundred and fifty-two thousand, one hundred and seventy-seven, Sir.

Has the number not increased rather than otherwise in recent months?

This figure is higher than the figure for last year. The total number for the last twelve months is approximately 280,000 into both Berlin and Western Germany. That figure is higher than the number for the calendar year, 1955, which is 252,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Councils of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and of Western European Union regarding the proposed supply of nuclear weapons to the armed forces of the German Federal Republic.

None, Sir, because no such proposal has been made.

Whilst welcoming that statement, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can give an assurance that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that German armed forces should not only not be allowed to make their own nuclear weapons but also not be allowed to receive them from outside?

I think that the extent to which the German armed forces should be armed with atomic weapons really falls to be considered under the Western European Union Treaty. The hon. Member will see that the matter is dealt with very carefully there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take regarding the refusal of the West German Government to contribute towards the cost of British forces stationed in Germany; and if Her Majesty's Government will now review the Paris Agreement requiring this country to maintain such forces for 44 years.

Negotiations on the question of the German contribution are still in progress in Bonn, and I cannot, therefore, make any statement at the present moment.

Does not the Minister recollect that this House was not under the impression at the time the Paris Agreements were signed that the full burden of the cost of maintaining British troops there would fall upon the British taxpayer? Therefore, is there not a case for reviewing the Paris Agreements in the light of the very unsatisfactory situation which has developed?

The purpose of the negotiations which are now being conducted is to ensure that the burden shall not fall upon the British taxpayer. I have nothing more to add to the Answer which I have given.

May I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the Germans have a reserve fund of about £350 million built up as a result of the costs of occupation being less than expected? Will he bear in mind, in making representations, that there is this nest egg which could be used for the purpose of maintaining the British Army in Germany for quite a considerable time?

I will also bear in mind the obligations to which Germany subscribed in the Paris Agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the American Export Line has left Gibraltar for Algeciras, and that this will mean a loss of one-third of the port's shipping business and will affect the tourist traffic; what representations have been made to the United States authorities on the matter; and what action has been taken by our Embassy in Washington.

I am aware of the American Export Line's recent decision and its consequences for Gibraltar, which I understand may fortunately not be as serious as the right hon. Member apprehends. But I do not consider it an appropriate subject for representations to the United States Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance, which our business people and others in Gibraltar are anxious to obtain, that this matter will be closely watched to ensure that no further deterioration in Gibraltar's trade ensues?

Yes, Sir. That situation will be carefully watched.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the first boat train from Algeciras arrived in Madrid the American Ambassador was on the platform to welcome it? Does he not think that this breach of correct behaviour should be pointed out to the United States Government?

Be careful.

I should have thought that the Ambassador would have been on the platform, wherever the train had come from.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told me in debate that this matter was a purely commercial one and had nothing to do with the State Department? In view of what the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) has just said, would the right hon. Gentleman make further representations to the State Department? Furthermore, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that communications are so bad from Algeciras that nearly all passengers take a car to Gibraltar and go by B.E.A. from there?

The mere fact that the Ambassador was there to welcome tourists does not suggest that this change of destination by the American Export Line was not originally dictated solely by commercial considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that there are signs that the United States Government is proceeding, with the support of the Spanish Government, to play a more active part in Gibraltar's affairs; and if he will make a statement as to how far this matter has gone.

My right hon. and learned Friend has heard nothing which would substantiate the right hon. Gentleman's hypothesis.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hypothesis has stemmed from information received from business people in Gibraltar; and will he keep a very watchful eye on the matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has already been far too much economic penetration in other parts of the world where our interests lie, and ought we not to be careful that economic penetration into Gibraltar is not intended for political purposes?

I am aware of nothing which would substantiate what the right hon. Gentleman has just suggested. If he has information to that effect, perhaps he might care to send it to me.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what official steps are being taken to secure contracts to build nuclear power stations in Australia.

Responsibility for securing contracts for the supply of nuclear power stations to overseas countries will rest with the companies who are able to supply them. A number of British companies are engaged in designing nuclear power stations in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Authority and the electricity authorities in this country, and this should enable them to undertake export orders in due course.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Press reports that American propaganda in Australia is stigmatising British achievements in the nuclear field as obsolete? If so, will he say whether any steps are being taken to counter this propaganda?

If the hon. Gentleman would provide me with any such material, I should be very glad to study it. Meanwhile, I have read the third annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, and I should have thought that that report gives an opportunity, when the times comes, for the kind of exports which the hon. Member has in mind.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what official negotiations have taken place with West German authorities in respect of the West German atomic energy programme.

There have been a number of discussions between the Atomic Energy Authority and representatives of the West German Authorities on collaboration on atomic energy. No commitments have been entered into, but, as my right hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said on 19th December, in reply to Questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), it has been made clear to the German Authorities that when they are in a position to make firm requests for assistance in the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, the Atomic Energy Authority will consider these sympathetically, subject to the availability of resources.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if West German industry is allowed to develop its own nuclear reactors independently of any international organisation, such as the proposed Euratom, there will be nothing to prevent Germany from developing the nuclear weapons which are forbidden under the Paris Agreements?

The hon. Member will be aware of Dr. Adenauer's own statement on this point, which may be reassuring. He may also be aware that there is to be a visit by the Federal Minister for Atomic Energy, who is coming to this country shortly, and we shall be able to discuss these matters with him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Ambassador is reported in Nuclear Engineering to have addressed a thousand businessmen at Hamburg, offering British help in the construction of nuclear power stations?

I have not the details of that, but I was aware that such a meeting had taken place.

asked the Lord Privy Seal by what principle particular private industrial firms are selected to collaborate with the Atomic Energy Authority in nuclear energy development for commercial and export purposes.

My noble Friend is informed by the Authority that in normal circumstances they follow the standard Government practice of placing their contracts by tender. Where special circumstances make competitive tender procedure impracticable, or where forms of collaboration otherwise than by contract are involved, firms are selected according to the resources of experience and skilled manpower which they are prepared to devote to their work.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if private industry co-operates in this work, as is probably essential, it is equally essential that there should be a fair field and no favour, and that a particular firm should not be given information obtained originally at public expense to the possible detriment of its present or future competitors?

Yes, I am aware of these considerations. I am glad that the hon. Member recognises that there is a case for private industry in this sphere.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a principle is involved here? For example, is he aware that the selection of certain civil engineering contractors, without asking for tenders or ascertaining whether other firms are willing or able to do the necessary work, has caused some concern that it might be creating a precedent in this new sphere of co-operation between the State and the private sector of industry?

I endeavoured to set out the general basis upon which this is all arranged in my statement on 14th March, which was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in making available a supply of enriched fuel for use in prototype nuclear reactors of medium size designed specially for export purposes.

Development of the type of reactor mentioned in the Question has not yet reached a sufficiently advanced stage for a prototype to be built. The question of supply of enriched fuel does not therefore arise.

Is it not a fact that the medium-sized reactor may have a large part to play in the export field? May I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to consider the publication of a White Paper to be called "Nuclear Power and the Export Trade"? That seems to many of us to be very important?

This is naturally a very important matter, and I will discuss it with my noble Friend, but I think it would be premature to take the action which the hon. Member desires.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also discuss with his noble Friend the question of the amount of enriched fuel and the number of scientists and technologists now engaged on defence purposes in this sphere; and, in view of the fact that we probably have already sufficient material for several score of these bombs, whether it is not time to move over a little more into the field of making possible the building of these stations more quickly and the supply of enriched fuel to them?

The hon. Member asks me to discuss this with my noble Friend, and I will certainly do that in the light of the question which he has just asked.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent approaches have been made to the United States Government with a view to removing obstacles in the way of full exchange of information on atomic research and development.

The exchange of information on atomic energy matters between the United States and the United Kingdom is governed by the two Agreements which were signed in June, 1955, and published as Cmds. 9507 and 9508. Co-operation under these Agreements is proceeding smoothly, and no such approaches have been necessary.

Surely the Lord Privy Seal does not intend to stand behind a technicality. Is he not aware that there is not full exchange of information, and that this situation has persisted since 1942–43? In view of the fact that we have made substantial advances in this field and have in some ways now overtaken the Americans, will he not offer to give them a helping hand? Even on that basis they might be prepared to consider it.

Yes, Sir. I am certainly willing to give a helping hand, but that does not alter the considered terms of the Answer which I gave.

Without departing from what my hon. Friend said, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay particular attention to the development of nuclear power through heavy water, in view of the fact that many scientists feel that it is in the light of that development that the industrial processes will come very quickly? Does he not think that we have been rather slack in this connection, particularly in the collapse of the scheme in New Zealand?

No, Sir. I do not think it can be said that the Authority has been slack. Of course, I pay attention to all supplementary questions put by hon. Members. They deserve the study which hon. Members desire that they should have. I cannot go further than that.