asked the Minister of Defence what sum is being paid in the current financial year by the Western German Government to the cost of the British Army of Occupation in Germany; what sum was paid in the two preceding years; and the estimated total costs of the occupying British forces for each of the three years.

The amount to be provided to the Federal German Government during the current financial year for the support of British forces stationed in Germany will not be known until the current negotiations with that Government have been concluded, as I hope they will be shortly. I will then inform the House what has been agreed.

The amounts provided in the two preceding financial years were approximately £160 million in 1954–55 and £72 million in 1955–56. The total cost of maintaining British forces in Germany was approximately £160 million in 1954–55 and £113 million in 1955–56. The estimated total cost for the current financial year is about £114 million.

Is the position now, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues have undertaken to maintain British forces in Germany as a result of an undertaking with the French who have nearly all their forces in North Africa? Is it not a fact that the German contribution to the American forces has been agreed for the current financial year? What is holding up these negotiations? Does the Chancellor still really expect a payment of £50 million?

The Answer to the last part of the Question is that there has been a sum fixed for the American forces, and we are still pressing for more than has been offered to us.

What is the difficulty in getting a settlement between us and the Germans if it is so easy for one to be reached between the Americans and the Germans? Secondly, is it not a fact that the Germans have built up a reserve of over £300 million in respect of occupation costs which were not incurred, and has that been taken into consideration?

The amount of the reserve fund has been borne in mind. The difficulty is that we are not satisfied with the offer that has been made to us, and are pressing for more.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the West German Government that there is a growing feeling in this country that recent policies in West Germany have been designed to get as much and to give as little as possible to the common cause, and that their recent policies have revived to a dangerous extent old suspicions and prejudices which were beginning to die out?

I should not like to accept that suggestion. I would say that we are maintaining firmly our desire to get more, and are doing it in the best possible spirit.

asked the Minister of Defence whether his Department has an inventory of all arms and stores in the defence Services and the Ministry of Supply.

No, Sir. The keeping of such detailed inventories seems more appropriate to Departmental housekeeping than to central control of policy.

Can we be assured that the three Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply have an inventory of all goods in their possession? How is it possible to determine whether further purchases should be made for the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply until we know what they already have? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give his attention to the matter?

I am giving attention to the matter. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember that an inquiry was conducted by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about some of the spendings and purchases which were complained of. One of the things which my right hon. Friend suggested was that my Ministry should investigate the machinery of procurement and provisioning in the Service Departments in order to ensure that they do not hold stocks larger than they need, and also that decisions are passed swiftly down the line, so that the Army, for instance, does not buy stores for a particular unit after a decision to disband it has been taken. That is an illustration. I have taken that suggestion in hand, and there is in progress an inter-Service working party under Ministry of Defence chairmanship.

Is it not a fact that a considerable amount of manpower is wasted in looking after all these stores which are virtually in moth-balls and which probably would not be brought out even if there was a war? How does the Minister propose to assist in the matter of manpower requirements for the three Services unles he has adequate knowledge at his disposal as to how much manpower is being used in moth-balling?

It would involve an enormous addition to expense if I were to require an inventory in the Ministry of each one of the items. I am well aware of the necessity of reducing and getting rid, under the terms of this remit to me of any unnecessary storage and maintenance cost, and I intend to pursue that.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will give an estimate of the savings that could be effected if the various defence Services were fully integrated.

It would not be possible to give such an estimate without lengthy and detailed research, which I do not think would be justified.

Can we have an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he will give this vital matter his whole-hearted attention, because while it will not weaken our defence organisation and preparation, it will at the same time have the effect of saving a vast sum of money?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He can be assured that I am giving this matter my earnest and present attention.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that this would be a good exercise for the Service Departments, and that sooner or later it has got to happen—and perhaps sooner? Would he not look at it again?

Would the Minister turn his attention first to the question of overlapping between the Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command of the Royal Air Force, as millions of pounds are being wasted there?

That is a matter which I have certainly very much in my mind.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to agree that in order to effect a larger measure of co-ordination and eventually integration he must have greater powers than he presently possesses?

That is a matter on which I cannot express myself at the moment.

asked the Minister of Defence if he has yet consulted the Service Ministers upon the desirability of discontinuing the call-up of National Service men for annual training; and what action he proposes to take.

The arrangements for this year will continue as announced in the White Paper on National Service of last October. I am not yet in a position to say whether any changes in the existing arrangements will be made in future years, but I and my Service colleagues will keep the matter under review.

Is the Minister aware that in one camp I visited a number of these men had been ordered to peel potatoes from 8 o'clock to 12.30 in the morning for the whole fifteen days, and that the authorities were hard put to it to provide work for many of those in that camp? Is this not a gross waste of the time of men withdrawn from industry?

Until some measure such as was, perhaps, suggested in the last Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) takes place, that question would be a matter for the Secretary of State for War to deal with.

In support of the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), may I ask the Minister whether he will at least agree that the numbers involved in the diminution of the call-up as a result of the deferment system is really equivalent to a six months' cut in conscription, and that, therefore, it is as easy to do one as the other?

I think there is a substantial difference. If there is a six months' cut in the period of service we lose the use of the men at the time when they have been fully trained and are of most value to the Service. Deferment means not taking them in at all until a later stage, when they do the full two years.

I am asking whether the numbers are virtually the same. That is what I want to know.

The numbers serving at a given moment may be the same, but what I am suggesting is that there is the great advantage that all those who are serving are serving for two years.

asked the Minister of Defence the number of National Service men called up in 1955 for their fifteen days' annual training, and the financial cost for that period.

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

Arising out of that reply, I should like to ask the Minister to speed up his inquiry into the whole question of the fifteen-day training, because apart from family hardship there is dislocation of industry and commerce, and I am certain that the nation can be saved millions of pounds.

I certainly do not intend to have any delay in this matter, but hon. Members will appreciate that we are already well into the programme for this year. Perhaps we shall have to look at it for another year.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in the light of Marshal Bulganin's proposal of 8th June, 1956, that nations should make voluntary reductions in their arms programmes without awaiting international agreement, he will now reconsider his refusal to end National Service.

I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave on 6th June to the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates).

But since the cold war has abated and throughout the world the ice is beginning to break up, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman not seize this opportunity of saying to the Russians, "Following your cuts of 1,840,000 men we will make cuts, and if you make another cut we will go further still"? Would not this move further relax world tension and produce that atmosphere which would be the condition for a collective disarmament agreement?

I can say only that I am not prepared at the moment to make a further statement about a reduction of our forces. I understand that the general matter of the supplementary question is being put one day this week to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think that it would be more appropriate for him than for me to deal with such a broad question.

asked the Minister of Defence on what grounds National Service men are at present exempted from their fifteen days' Reserve training; and if he will now extend them to all cases where family hardship or interference with industry is proved.

Reserve training can be remitted or deferred on compassionate grounds. Applications are sympathetically considered. No hard and fast rule can however be laid down and individual cases must be dealt with on merits. National Service reservists in a limited number of civilian occupations are also normally exempted from Reserve training.

Is the Minister aware of one-man firms which are endangered where there is no substitute for the proprietor whilst he is doing his service? Is he also aware that in many of these very hard cases the men involved do no training at all during the fifteen days?

As to the one-man firms, I said that each case must be dealt with on its merits, and it is not true that in every case of a one-man firm the hardship is such that a man ought to be excused his service.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will request the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council to terminate the appointment of Field Marshal Lord Montgomery as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander on the grounds that his public statements are not compatible with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's policy.

I know of no grounds on which to make a request of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

Is the Minister aware that the Field Marshal was widely reported as saying in Canada on 1st June that if anyone anywhere in the world started an aggression

"we should give them the works from the word go with atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, with the biggest thing we've got and with everything we've got "?

Speech.

He added that he did not mind the consequences but would drop a bomb on anyone committing an aggressionߞ

"Drop the biggest bomb you can and finish them off."

He added that his political superiors probably would not agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] In view of this would the Minister not agreeߞ

Order. This question is too long.

Would the Minister not agree that if the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander is to be allowed to get away with boasts of insubordination—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and exhibitions of homicidal mania—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the prestige of N.A.T.O. all over the world will be severely damaged?

I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this is Question Time, which we all share together, and that if speeches are made under the guise of supplementary questions other hon. Members will have their rights taken away from them.

On a point of order. The speech was made by Field Marshal Montgomery, not by me. I think that the House would feel it very unfair that I should make such serious charges without adducing some evidence in justification of them.

No.

I think myself that if the hon. Member will consider the point, he will find that the House will take a different view.

Further to that point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about this quotation of speeches? My hon. Friend asked a question about what he alleged was a difference between statements made by the Field Marshal and the policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Minister's Answer was that he knew of no such difference. How else could my hon. Friend have pointed out the difference, without quoting the speech?

To follow the course which the hon. Member followed was to indulge in debate at Question Time, and these are two different things. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter he should seize an opportunity in debate, and not take away the time for Questions.

Further to that point of order. Is it not quite usual to make a quotation when advancing a supplementary question?

Not at such length.

May I ask the Minister —to take a quite opposite point of view from that expressed by my hon. Friend —whether he is aware that the declaration to use "everything we have got," meaning by that the use of nuclear weapons, in the event of wholesale aggression against the West, is not only the declared policy of the Government, but has been accepted in principle by the Labour Party? Is it not time, leaving aside the merits of some of the speeches made by the Field Marshal, that we stopped attacking one who is a fine soldier and an honourable man?

Hear, hear.

Before the Minister gives an answer to that question, may I ask him whether he will take the trouble to embody in it an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) at the same time?

I am seizing the first opportunity of doing so. I had not seen the full text of the Field Marshal's remarks. They seem to have been made impromptu, if they are correctly reported, at a Press conference, but from the Press reports it seems quite clear that he was merely emphasising the supreme importance of the nuclear deterrent. As I said myself in the recent defence debate, we shall never be the aggressors, but others must be deterred from risking aggression against us by the sure knowledge of the overwhelming retaliation which they will receive in return. [HON.MEMBERS: "Speech."] It has been made abundantly clear by N.A.T.O.—and the Field Marshal himself specifically referred to this—that the decision to use nuclear weapons rests with the political authorities, and so it does.

asked the Minister of Defence the estimated strength in divisions of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America, France and the United Kingdom, at present stationed in Germany, also those of East Germany.

We estimate that there are twenty-two Soviet and seven East German divisions in East Germany. There are five United States and four United Kingdom divisions in West Germany. As regards French forces, as I explained to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 8th February, it would not be appropriate for me to disclose information which, so far as I am aware, the French themselves have not disclosed.

Is the announced reduction of 30,000 men in the Soviet armed forces in Germany likely to result in any reduction in the size of the Western armed forces stationed in Germany?

We estimate that the reduction would be of the order of one or two divisions, and I cannot say that that of itself would need a change in our forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the difference between the Foreign Service allowances of temporary and permanent members of missions abroad holding comparable senior rank.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence which I have is very different, and that in fact there are members of missions abroad, holding comparable rank to first and second secretaries, etc., who not only have different salaries but very considerably different allowances, although their duties in regard to entertaining are identical, and in some cases they have to do a great deal more?

If the hon. Member will forward his evidence I will examine it, but I am advised that there is no difference whatsoever in Foreign Service allowances. Perhaps the hon. Member is thinking of the language allowance, which is not included in the Foreign Service allowance and is not payable to temporary officers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that there is no provision in the United Nations Charter debarring the United Nations from accepting any claims to territory made over to it by any nation and as a general conference of United Nation members is to consider before the end of 1957 the terms of a revised Charter of the United Nations, he will propose to the nations having claims to Antarctica that they should conditionally offer such claims to United Nations and that United Nations should provisionally accept such claims and forthwith seek revision of its Charter to make such acceptances constitutional.

No, Sir.

Would it not be wiser to give some time to this consideration, having regard to the fact that so many weary hours have been given to considering disarmament which have almost led to the conviction that the only solution lies in the development of a supranational power of some kind? Would it not be a good thing to have a pilot plan to consider at any rate a supra-national authority in this important field?

As I think I have said before, the proposal which my hon. Friend makes for investing in United Nations sovereignty over this area is not in keeping with the principles of the Charter as it stands, nor is there any provision in the Charter for it. As to the Committee to which my hon. Friend refers, it has not yet been convened, and it is only to make recommendations to the twelfth session of the General Assembly, in 1957, about the timing and procedure for a Charter review conference. It is not to take any decision on any matter of substance itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent supply to Egypt of warships bearing the Polish ensign, including two destroyers, he will take steps, with the other signatories to the Tripartite Declaration, to enable Israel to obtain the arms necessary for her defence.

Her Majesty's Government have no definite information that would confirm the assumption on which this Question is based. Their policy on arms to the Middle East countries remains as stated by my right hon. and learned Friend in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) on 28th March.

Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this matter? Is he aware that the Egyptian Press has applauded this action on the part of Russia? Is he aware that these vessels are very effective warships, that they are also minelayers and cannot possibly be used for the purpose, referred to in the Tripartite Declaration, of ensuring internal security and legitimate defence? Is he also aware that if they were used they could establish an effective blockade against Israel by mining, because they can lay about eighty mines each, and that they have a maximum speed of about 30 knots? Will he look into this matter and, if they have been supplied, will he see that something effective is done about balancing the position as far as Israel is concerned?

We have no definite information about their supply. If we have definite information we shall take that information into account in deciding our arms deliveries policy.

If that is taken into account, together with the report that the Czechs are likely to supply arms to Syria, is it not time that the British Government, together with the other two Powers concerned in the Tripartite Declaration, did something about giving quality arms to Israel to maintain the balance of arms in that part of the world?

Both quantity and quality are taken into account in deciding the delivery of arms to both sides, as my right hon. and learned Friend and I have said on repeated occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will enter into discussions with the countries sponsoring the Euratom proposals with a view to clarifying the conditions under which the United Kingdom could be a member of Euratom.

The proposed scope and powers of Euratom have already been set out in a report which was adopted by the Governments of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands at a meeting in Venice on 29th–30th May. This report contemplates that a permanent connection would be established within the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation between Euratom and the other member countries, and in particular calls for close association between Euratom and the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government look forward to associating with Euratom within the framework of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question relates to British participation as a member of Euratom? Will he take note of the very important statement made by M. Monnet that British participation in Euratom is indispensable? Will he at least give an undertaking that the Government have not closed their mind to the possibility that such British participation might be advantageous to this country and European countries as well?

Notwithstanding what has been said by M. Monnet, for whom I have the greatest respect, the Euratom plan as it stands is incompatible with the interests of the United Kingdom, because Euratom is to have a monopoly of the ownership and distribution of raw materials and will fix prices and control the use of those materials which it sells to outside countries. That is not compatible with United Kingdom interests, but, nevertheless, we hope that the Euratom project will develop complementary-wise with that of 0.E.E.C., in which we are already playing a full Part.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the atomic tests already announced, he will seek to reach agreement with the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the termination of similar tests by those countries and the United Kingdom.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 7th June, Her Majesty's Government will take every appropriate opportunity of discussing methods of regulating and limiting test explosions which take account of their position and that of other Powers.

But is not that a somewhat nebulous reply? Cannot we have a definite assurance that when the contemplated tests by Her Majesty's Government have been undertaken they will then decide quite definitely, so far as we are concerned, that we are not disposed to undertake any further tests, and make that well known to the U.S.S.R. and the United States?

I do not know quite what the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about, because in March this year M. Moch, on behalf of France, and I, on behalf of the United Kingdom, gave effect to the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman makes in this very Question for the limitation and ultimately the prohibiton of test explosions, but that plan was rejected as inadequate by the representative of the Soviet Union.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Report published today by the Medical Research Council's Committee on the hazards to man of nuclear and allied radiation underlines the grave danger that mankind will suffer if there is any continuance of these nuclear tests?

I will, of course, bear that in mind, and that is why we anticipated those conclusions in the plan which France and the United Kingdom launched in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, and I should have thought that the House would have given the Government some credit for that and for trying to get agreement on this question. So far, we have failed to get any reaction from the Soviet Union other than a negative one.

Is it not a fact that the statement which the Medical Research Council issued to the Press this morning, when properly examined, gives rise to a real sense of alarm, because it is perfectly obvious that we have no way at all of measuring the consequences of what is now happening? Is it not a fact —and if it is not, the position should be made clear—that the Soviet Union has offered to make no further tests? If that is so, what is the response of the Government to the offer?

The response of the Government to the offer was contained in the proposals which were launched in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, namely, to agree that, subject to a staged and phased programme, there should be prohibition of test explosions, but that those must be subject to effective international control. Whatever the conclusions which the right hon. Gentleman draws from the Report of the Medical Research Council may be, I would claim that it shows the urgency of trying to get agreement on this question in the United Nations, and that is precisely what the Government are engaged in doing, and what we will press at the meeting of the Disarmament Commission in July.

But is it not now established that we have in this matter the one form of control which is effective, namely, that if any nation conducts a hydrogen or nuclear bomb test, it is known, and therefore are we not in the position of having some sort of reassurance in this field? If that is the case, ought we not to take advantage of it, and not go on frightening people all over the world by such tests?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. It may be true that the very biggest tests are self-policed, or whatever the phrase has been, but it is also true that there are a number of test explosions which can take place without any detection.

May I follow up that aspect again? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is really not a satisfactory position. It may be the case that some small nuclear tests are not easily detectable, but those are the tests which do the least damage. We are concerned with those tests which cause radio-active consequences to man- kind all over the world. Will not the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take up the Soviet Union's offer in respect of the tests of large bombs?

We have done so, and since the right hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the proposals which were launched in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, I would invite him to read them. He will see that they cover all kinds of tests, large or small.

rose—

Order. This is a very large subject. Mr. Younger.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he is making with a view to ensuring that the revised text of the Restitutions Law of the Federal Republic of Germany adequately implements the undertaking given by the Federal Republic in the Bonn Agreements to compensate those who were persecuted by the Nazis on account of nationality.

Her Majesty's Government count on the Federal German Republic to fulfil its obligation under the Bonn Settlement Convention to provide adequate compensation for persons who were persecuted during the Nazi rágime on grounds of nationality. The Bill incorporating the revised text of the Federal Compensation Law of 1953 does not appear to fulfil this obligation, and further representations in this sense have been made to the Federal German authorities by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Bonn.

Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that sympathetic reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the attitude of the German courts so far in implementing this quite clear obligation to a small but deserving group of people has been very disappointing indeed, that the new draft appears to be equally disappointing, and that he would be doing a great service if he could persuade the German Federal Government that to revise this text would do a great deal for their reputation?

We shall continue to do what we can in this respect. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the final reading of this Bill in the Upper House of the German Parliament takes place this month, and we hope that it will be suitably amended in the sense which he and the Government desire.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now seek the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation over the Cyprus problem.

My right hon. and learned Friend does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by referring the present situation in Cyprus to N.A.T.O.

I agree that the main Cyprus problem is clearly one for the Commonwealth itself, but have not the Government themselves pointed out that the whole of the Cyprus difficulty is leading to increasing bitterness between Greece and Turkey, and greatly weakening the defences of the eastern end of the Mediterranean? Would it not at least be possible to raise that part of the problem, and that part only, with N.A.T.O.?

We deeply regret the deterioration in relations within N.A.T.O. which has been caused by this dispute, but that is not to say that N.A.T.O. is the correct machinery for resolving the present difficulties in relation to Cyprus.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said recently that Cyprus is required as a base in order to protect Middle East oil, and as Americans get a substantial amount of oil from the Middle East, is it not a question of dealing with the N.A.T.O. Powers in relation to a base which is there for the sole purpose of depriving the Soviet of Middle East oil?

It may have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that the Middle East is outside the area of N.A.T.O.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has noted the recommendation made by the committee to investigate racial discrimination in shops and other businesses in Northern Rhodesia that a statutory race relations board should be set up with the task of ensuring that all possible steps are taken to implement the Government's declared policy of removing discrimination on the ground of race alone; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has read the report, and so noted the recommendations of the Committee. The report has not yet been considered by the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council and no decisions on the recommendations made in it can be taken until this has been done.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree, having regard to the fact that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) was given a first Reading unanimously by the House this week, that similar action to prevent racial discrimination might well be taken in Northern Rhodesia? Will he at least encourage the Government of Northern Rhodesia to take such action?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that as the Northern Rhodesian Government have set up the Committee themselves, it would be only courteous for us to allow them to consider the recommendations and for them to be considered in the Legislative Assembly before we comment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many children under the age of 14 years have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment in Kenya for activities connected with Mau Mau.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the official records at Kamiti Prison, Kenya, showed that a girl prisoner No. 13222/J, admitted 21st September, 1954, sentenced to seven years' hard labour, was 11 years of age, and girl prisoners No. 127950, admitted 20th August, 1954, and No. 7966/J, admitted 12th June, 1954, sentenced to Governor's pleasure, maximum security, were 12 years of age, when under Kenya legislation no child under the age of 14 years may be sentenced to imprisonment; and what investigation was made prior to their imprisonment that they were in fact 14 years of age.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the errors in the prison records in Kenya relating to the imprisonment of girls stated in the records to be under 14 years of age.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement as to how girls came to be recorded in the Kenya prison records as being under the age of 14 years.

Under Kenya legislation no child under the age of 14 may be sentenced to imprisonment. A person under 18 who is convicted by a court on a capital charge must be sentenced to detention during the Governor's pleasure and such detention may be in prison. Where it appears to a court that an accused person may be a child or a young person, the court has to satisfy itself as to the age of the accused, if necessary by calling evidence including medical evidence.

The ages of some girls at Kamiti prison are shown in the records as being under 14. In all cases, the courts which convicted had to satisfy themselves that the accused were of or over that age. The prisoners' ages are not shown on commitment warrants which indicate, however, whether the prisoner has been sentenced as a juvenile, between the ages of 14 and 18, or as an adult.

The prison record-sheets are made out on the admission of prisoners by an African clerk from the commitment warrants and from the answers of the prisoners. In some cases, it has been found that the ages shown in the record-sheets have been subsequently altered in different ink, to show a lower age, as in the case of 13222/J where the figure 18 was altered to 11. It is not known by whom, when or for what purpose these alterations were made, but no responsible officer authorised them.

The ages of persons can only be determined, in the absence of any system of registration of their births, by reference to their physical development, and, in Africa, to their tribal age groups. Examination of all female juvenile prisoners now at Kamiti by a panel of three Kikuyu women of equivalent standing to tribal elders has confirmed that all were of or over the age of 14 and of adult tribal age groups when sentenced.

Is this not a most disturbing statement? What guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give that the ages of these and other children, which he has now given us, are the correct ages? Will he have a complete investigation made into the ages of all people who may possibly be under the age of 14?

As I have said, the ages are the result of medical examination, of expert examination. However, in view of the apparent differences between the particulars of prisoners published by Miss Fletcher and the original prison records, at my invitation Miss Fletcher agreed to come to the Colonial Office this morning with her copies of the prison records, to discuss these differences with officers of my Department and with the Attorney-General of Kenya, whom I had asked to come home to England, bringing those originals with him. The age given on the first original record examined, prisoner 13222/J, a married Kikuyu woman, showed an alteration from 18 to 11. Miss Fletcher said that there were no alterations in the ages shown on the original records when she copied details from them, and she offered no comment on the fact that the age she ascribed to this prisoner, 11, was the same as the altered age on the original records. She then declined to give any further assistance in arriving at the truth of this or other anomalies without legal advice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly. Hon. Gentlemen might let me finish my Answer. I have no quarrel with that whatever. In fairness to her, I must say that she did not withdraw any allegations, but wished to have time to prepare her case with legal advice.

While appreciating the action of the right hon. Gentleman in summoning the Attorney-General of Kenya to this country, so that there might be a thorough investigation of the charges which have been made, may I ask him whether his reply to the House today does not indicate that these prison records have included the ages of children under 14 years of age? Is it not the case that when Miss Fletcher met the Attorney-General of Kenya at the Colonial Office this morning she not only stood by every statement which she had made, but also indicated that she was prepared to make a legal deposition to that effect as soon as Mr. Dingle Foot had returned to this country, Mr. Foot being her legal adviser?

I do not think that anything I have said is broadly in conflict with what the hon. Member has said. Miss Fletcher declined to go further into this matter this morning, and none of my officers, nor the Attorney-General of Kenya thought that that was unreasonable, in the absence of legal advice. When she has had legal advice, which will be available very soon, I hope that she will do so. She does not withdraw her charges, but I must make absolutely plain that, having examined all the records concerned with great care—and I have the record of the first case here with the original figure in red ink altered in blue ink to 11 by some person unknown—I also stand by everything that I said during the debate and today.

Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling the House that on the prison records every one of these ages to which reference has been made has been altered, or is it the fact that, despite the alterations in certain cases, there were still cases in which an entry was made and not later altered, to the effect that a child under 14 had been in prison?

Where in fact there had been alterations, the alterations have had the result of bringing the age down below the level at which a child could have been sentenced to imprisonment.

In view of the fact that there is admirable approved school accommodation for boys, but none for girls, is it really contrary to the safety of the Colony to release girl juveniles who are now held for Mau Mau offences? Can we not let out these young girls under 18 without any real danger to our safety?

That is another matter. In the debate I dealt with the particular facilities available for juvenile girls. I join with the hon. and learned Member in wishing that there were the same facilities for juvenile girls as there is for juvenile boys of approved school kind, but in fact I am assured—and I am convinced that this is so—that the particular facilities available for the girls have the attributes of approved schools, and that they are segregated from the main part of the women's prison.

There is still one point which is rather obscure. The right hon. Gentleman read a very long Answer and the point may not have been clear. I do not complain. Is it the fact that the prison authorities signed the list showing the child to be under the legal age?

No, Sir. That is not so. The ages were entered by an African clerk, and they have in fact been altered. It was on how they came to be altered that I and my officers were anxious to have a discussion this morning with Miss Fletecher, but it seems difficult to carry this matter further until she has had that outside and legal assistance which, I readily acknowledge, I have myself.

That was not my question. The question I asked was whether it was a fact that the list which the right hon. Gentleman has seen and the list provided by Miss Fletcher contained the signature of the prison authorities. That list showed a child in prison under the legal age. Was the list altered after the signature of the prison authorities, or before?

In fact the age has been altered from 18 to 11 in an ink of a colour different from that on the original statement. [Interruption.] I should be very interested to know when, and by whom. When the original statement was made, it included the officer's and all other relevant signatures and the age of this particular prisoner. I am deliberately concentrating on the age of this particular prisoner, the first on the list of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), which was put down as 18.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why Richard Acheng Oneke, who was brought to trial in Kenya in 1952 and acquitted in 1953, is still being imprisoned notwithstanding the finding of not guilty and if he will reconsider this matter and also place in the Library of the House particulars of charges outstanding and evidence in support of them

(2) why ex-Chief of the Kikuyu, Mbyu Koinange, who was brought to trial in 1953 and acquitted without the defence being called upon, is still in detention and has been in detention since before the outbreak of the Mau Mau rising under laws passed subsequent to his arrest; and whether he will reconsider this matter and also place in the Library the charges which have been made and the evidence in support.

I have nothing to add to my replies to the hon. Member on the 9th March and 26th October, 1955.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Questions raise two entirely different cases which have no connection whatever, one being that of a charge arising out of Mau Mau and the other that of a charge having nothing to do with Mau Mau?

First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Richard Acheng Oneke faced a trial lasting many months, that the court of appeal said that there was no evidence at all against him, that he was then rearrested under the Emergency Regulations which had been passed while he was in prison, that he has been in prison since before the state of emergency was declared, and that, therefore, this Christian pacifist cannot possibly have broken any Emergency Regulations because he was locked up miles from the scene?

Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ex-chief of the Kikuyu is over 80 years of age, has been in prison since before the emergency was declared, and that at his trial the court of first instance dismissed the charge without calling on the defence on the ground that there was no evidence against him?

As to the latter case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, the circumstances of the chief's detention are very generous, particularly because of his very great age. I am satisfied that there is this in common between the two cases, that it is in the interests of the mass of the people of Kenya as a whole that these persons should not be prematurely released. I am sure that it is because action of this kind has been taken that the mass of the good people of Kenya can now look forward with confidence to an early better life.

Hear, hear.

The right hon. Gentleman gets cheers from behind him but few in the country. Is it not a fact that the retention of this man of over 80 years of age who has been declared innocent by a court of law disgusts all decent opinion in Great Britain?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of the estimated expenditure in Kenya during the coming year is to be for the maintenance of law and order, for education, and for social services other than education.

For the financial year 1956–57 the Kenya Government have allocated 33.3 per cent. of their estimated total expenditure to the maintenance of law and order, 13 per cent. to education and 6.9 per cent. to social services other than education. These figures include emergency as well as ordinary and development expenditure. If emergency expenditure is excluded, the percentages are 18.9, 16.6 and 8.8 respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to ensure that the police at Kiambu, Kenya, do not hold persons in custody unlawfully or extort confessions from them, in view of the resident magistrate's judgment, on 23rd May last, in the case of Niwolo Nywili discharged at the preliminary inquiry when accused of killing his employer.

A full inquiry into the circumstances of this case has been ordered by the Commissioner of Police.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the magistrate, Mr. C. L. Regan, has stated that the sooner the police at Kiambu understand the judges' rules and apply them, the better? Will the Secretary of State ensure that that statement is kept before the court of inquiry?

That is, of course, a very important observation for it to consider.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement upon the political situation in Aden.

There have been no significant developments since the visit by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Will the Minister agree that both the Yemen and Saudi Arabia cast covetous eyes on the Protectorate? Following the statement of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the tribesmen want a clearer statement about policy. We need to make it clear that they are in our care, and that we shall look after them. They want to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing in this matter.

I am glad to have this and every other opportunity to reassure the people of the Colony of Aden and the Protectorate that we have every intention of continuing to discharge our great responsibilities in both areas.

On a point of order. I hope that the Secretary of State is not taking Question No. 34 with Question No. 22. although my Question is on the same lines.

No, but I am clad to repeat my assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take regarding constitutional change in Mauritius following the recent debate in the Legislative Council of this Colony.

I shall study with interest the record of the debate which has only recently reached me. I trust that it will be possible to adhere to the timetable for action outlined in my reply to the hon. Member on 13th March.

Is the Minister aware that the voting in favour of his proposal was fifteen to fourteen and that there would have been a tie if Mr. Rougemont had not died before the voting took place? Is he further aware that only four elected members voted in favour of his proposal, and that he flung in eight official members, including three officers of the Crown, to get the voting in his favour on this matter?

The way in which the hon. Member has put the matter is not quite consistent with the facts. I had many discussions with representatives from Mauritius when they were here some time ago. I am convinced that the proposals which we have put forward are most in tune with the interests and the problems of heterogeneous communities such as we have in Mauritius. I ask hon. Members and all in Mauritius as well to look at these proposals as a whole and not to pick out only that part which the Mauritius Labour Party dislikes and that part which the other side dislikes. I am convinced that the more the proposals are studied as a whole, the more they will command support.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the three points that Mr. David Marshall put to him on the Constitution of Singapore after the official breakdown of the London talks and before he left this country for home; and what was his reply.

Details of the three points in question, together with my comments on them, are contained in Appendix 10 to the White Paper on the Singapore Constitutional Conference which was laid before the House on Friday, 1st June.

Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the gap between Singapore and the Colonial Office is unbridgeable? If it is not, will he take steps now to build a bridge across it? Is he aware that there is a feeling in Singapore that the conversations should be renewed? Will he take steps to that end with the new rágime as quickly as possible?

I have swept no bridge away. The bridge that we patiently built up while the delegation was here, and which nearly all the delegation wanted to cross, is still there.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement about the re-formation of the West India Regiment.

Sufficient West Indian Governments have agreed to participate, and I am now considering the measures needed to re-form the Regiment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but is he aware that the matter has been delayed for a very long time because of legal technicalities, and that the delay has already done real damage to the Regiment's prospects because many of its officers have gone elsewhere and are no longer available? Will my right hon. Friend really press the project forward as a matter of urgency?

I have no reason to think that this very fine project has been jeopardised by the regrettable delays. We are pushing on as quickly as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the minimum salary payable to teachers and nurses in Tanganyika.

The minimum basic salary payable to both teachers and nurses in the Government Service is £108 per annum plus a cost of living allowance of 10 per cent. Both classes are on a salary scale rising to £318 per annum subject to certain efficiency tests.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the fact that these people might not qualify for the franchise under the proposals that are now being discussed in Tanganyika? Does he not think that people such as teachers and nurses should be responsible electors?

It is very difficult to answer the hon. Lady's question. It is hard to assess actually how many would qualify. She will know that there are two methods by which they qualify. One is by having education up to standard XII or its equivalent, and the other is having an income of not less than £200 per annum.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many European. Asian and African children in Tanganyika reach standard XII; and what proportion they are of the estimated population of the appropriate age.

The numbers of children in standard XII in the present academic year are African 133, Asian 262, European 43 and other non-native, including Goan, 16. The age groups in the latest census are too wide to enable the information requested in the second part of the Question to be provided.

As this is one of the major qualifications proposed for the franchise in Tanganyika, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the standard is ridiculously high? Should it not be reconsidered?

I will certainly listen to what the hon. Lady says, but I would point out that we hope that these numbers will be increased. She will be aware that on 25th April this year a new five-year education plan was announced, and secondary education will benefit under it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons in Government service in Tanganyika are in receipt of remuneration of £200 per annum or more; and how many receive less than this amount, distinguishing between European, Asian, and African employees, respectively.

The following are approximate figures:—3,000 Europeans, 1,200 Asians and 1,700 Africans receive remuneration of £200 per annum or more; no Europeans, 150 Asians and 17,000 Africans receive less than £200 per annum.

Is not this qualification higher than it ought to be as one of the principal qualifications for the proposed franchise? Ought not the whole matter to be thoroughly reconsidered by the Government of Tanganyika?

I am sure that what the hon. Lady has said will be noted, but I think she will agree with me that the proposals which are contemplated are a very considerable step forward.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a Statement on his talks with the Governor of Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to publish a constitution or other concrete proposals which Her Majesty's Government is willing to offer to the Ethnarchy or to Archbishop Makarios or to any representative Cypriot as a basis for the settlement or the negotiation for a settlement of the dispute in Cyprus.

The talks which my colleagues and I have been having with Sir John Harding have covered the whole range of major questions involved in Cyprus policy. When these discussions have been completed, I shall make a statement.

Is the Colonial Secretary aware that Field Marshal Harding has been reported in the Press as saying that he could not recommend negotiations with Archbishop Makarios again? Is he aware of the dangers of such firm statements being made? Will he make it clear that the policy of the Government is not to make any commitment as to with whom they will or will not negotiate at this stage?

I think that one must pay very considerable regard to the fact that Field Marshal Sir John Harding has had more dealings with Archbishop Makarios than anybody in this House and many people outside it. I think it would be very unfortunate if any attempt were made to blame the Field Marshal for any statement that he makes, considering how ready he has shown himself to meet as many people as possible during the period of his official visit here.

Field Marshal Sir John Harding cannot, of course, be blamed for what appears in the public Press, but would it not be undesirable that a servant of the Crown should make any statement concerning the conditions under which negotiations with anybody could be resumed?

Sir John Harding has had more experience of the difficulty of dealing with Archbishop Makarios than anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Personally, I strongly share the field marshal's scepticism as to the value of such talks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? The question is: is it not undesirable that a servant of the Crown, who must carry out the policy of the Government, should make any statement about the conditions under which negotiations could be resumed, or with whom they could be resumed? If he does, is it not obvious that if we have any departure which contradicts that statement, he would have to be removed?

I have no conflict or quarrel of any kind with anything that the field marshal has said or done either here or in Cyprus.

As the right hon. Gentleman has promised that he will make a statement when the talks are over, may I ask him whether the discussions about the policy for Cyprus are being conducted on the basis that, whenever negotiations are reopened, they wil not be reopened with Archbishop Makarios?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman, with his own experience of these difficult matters, would agree with me that it would be wise to wait until I make my full statement.

Was not the newspaper report a purported report of a meeting at which Sir John Harding met hon. Members?

May I press the Secretary of State on this matter? Are we to understand that at this moment the Government do not rule out re-opening negotiations with Archbishop Makarios?

I am not prepared to make any interim comment of any kind upon this matter.

On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance and help, Mr. Speaker? For about ten days I have had on the Order Paper three Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and which, for the second time, we have just failed to reach. The effect is that I now have either to lose my opportunity for asking supplementary questions upon what I consider to be important matters, or defer them for another week, making a total of very nearly three weeks. Can you suggest any means by which hon. Members on the back benches can protect themselves against this sort of thing?

I sympathise with the hon. Member's dilemma. I think it is very regrettable that today we have been allowed to reach only Question No. 34. That is due entirely to the lack of distinction—which I find it necessary to comment upon from time to time—between Question Time and debate. There is a tendency to pursue these matters further than they can legitimately be pursued at Question Time, and the only way of seeing that Members on the back benches get their full share at Question Time is by limiting the number and length of supplementary questions by every Member and trying to get through the list. It will need to be a co-operative effort if we are to get through more Questions.

Last week we had one Question answered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and this week we have managed to have 14 answered, although the right hon. Gentleman started at No. 19. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give consideration to the whole question of the problem of Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies? A very large number of Questions are asked of him, and his responsibilities are very wide. There is a real problem in relation to the control of this House upon that Department.

Hon. Members will exercise more control over Departments if they ask fewer and shorter supplementary questions.