asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the fact that the policy of the Government is now not to attempt defence of the whole country against nuclear attack but to concentrate on defending the Anglo-American nuclear bases stationed here, what steps he has taken to inform the nation of this restricted policy and on what occasions; and whether he will make a statement.

This was stated in the Defence White Paper last April.

Is it not a fact that the Minister of Defence, at Canberra on 20th August, declared that as it was impossible to defend this country against nuclear attack, the Government were going to concentrate on the defence of bases only and thanked the people of this country for the loyal way in which they had accepted this harsh necessity? Is not it true that on 26th June the Government admitted that the stationing of Anglo-American bases here would attract nuclear attack? What chance have the people of this country had to say what they think of the Government's policy of attracting nuclear attack and then abandoning the country without defence against nuclear attack?

Hon. Members usually regard themselves as representatives of the people of this country. This policy was stated in the White Paper on Defence which was subsequently approved by the House.

In view of the Minister's many statements that there is no defence against nuclear attack on this country, can he say what the Foreign Secretary meant when he told the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee that the advent of nuclear weapons had brought the country a new security?

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman confirms what I have said, that is to say, we have made this quite clear for quite a long time, and I hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) has taken note of that. As far as the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are concerned, it does not follow that, because one has no defence, the existence of a powerful deterrent on both sides does not perhaps constitute some measure of security.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Governor of Hong Kong, in September last, on the subject of the Colony's defences.

My visit in September gave me the opportunity for full discussions with the Governor, the military commanders and the police authorities about defence and internal security problems in Hong Kong.

Is the Minister not aware that during the period of his visit he stated, according to the Manchester Guardian of 16th September, that, while no decisions would be taken in Hong Kong, there would also be no startling announcements? Now, in the month of November, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make the startling announcements here that he refrained from making in Hong Kong, and will those startling announcements include a decision to stop the stockpiling of nuclear weapons in South-East Asia?

Hong Kong, of course, is not in South-East Asia, and I have no startling announcements to make.

On a point of order. Surely the Minister responsible for defending the Commonwealth should know more about its geography.

That is not a point of order. The hon. Member ought to know that.

asked the Minister of Defence the cost of the recent combined military operations in Oman.

The best estimate available for the costs of these military operations is about £270,000.

Can the Minister tell us whether the expenditure is being continued and whether the soldiers and the Air Force are still in the neighbourhood? Does not he think that he could make some arrangement by which he could collect this rather substantial sum from the oil companies instead of it having to be paid by the taxpayer?

I do not think that is a large sum to pay for establishing confidence in Britain's word throughout Arabia and the Persian Gulf.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, whatever the cost, Britain intends to support her friends and allies in that part of the world?

I think that deeds speak for themselves.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is now able to make a statement about the proposed abandonment of, or reduction of expenditure upon, the guided missiles project in the Western Isles.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the date on which Her Majesty's Government decided to establish a rocket range in South Uist; what was the original estimate of the likely expenditure; how much money has already been spent; and what economies he proposes.

The Government's decision to set up a guided weapons range in the Hebrides was announced on 27th July, 1955. It would be contrary to practice to publish precise estimates of the cost of such projects, but it was of the order of £20 million. The preparatory works which have been carried out, or are in hand, amount to something under £500,000.

While appreciating some of the reasons why events, including Sputniks, have made this project abortive and out of date, at the same time will the Minister realise that it has caused the utmost disturbance to local people, that it has put some out of their homes and land, and some out of jobs? Will he now approach his colleagues in the Government Departments and ask them to be less niggardly in promoting major and very necessary schemes of economic development—projects of a permanently useful character and employing local people? Will he at least give them some assurance on that score?

First, what I am now considering has nothing to do with Sputniks. Let me be quite clear about that. I, also, recognise the unfortunate effects of leaving people in a state of uncertainty, and for that reason I am doing everything I can to speed up a decision. I do not think it would be any good my making a partial statement on a subject of this kind, since it might create more uncertainty and more confusion. As regards the general question of bringing industry to the Highlands, though I must say that the first reaction to the approach of some new development in the Hebrides was not universally welcomed, this question is one which is always very much in the mind of the Government. I was glad that when I was Minister of Supply I had the opportunity to bring the atomic scheme to Dounreay, in the very northernmost part of the Highlands.

The right hon. Gentleman should correct his geography. Dounreay is not anywhere near the Western Islands. It is in the far northeast of Scotland. The second part of my question asked directly whether some kind of restoration of the social and economic life of the Uists could be arranged in view of the disturbance. chaos and confusion which has been caused. People have been rendered homeless and landless and unemployed. Now, apparently, the project is being virtually abandoned and the local people brushed aside, with no further help from his Ministry. Will the Minister do something definite, at least to restore the damage that has already been done?

In case the hon. Gentleman, unlike myself, has not been to Dounreay, I can tell him that it is near Caithness. On the general question, I think I have spoken with sympathy about any disturbance of mind that may have been caused by the anticipation of changes of plan. I do not think we should exaggerate the disturbance in the livelihood of those people which has taken place.

Is the Minister aware that, if this gigantic white elephant was to cost £20 million, we all hope that his efforts to restrict this expenditure will be successful? Can he tell us whether it is true, as The Times correspondent said yesterday, that all work on the range is now at a standstill?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should await the full statement which I hope to make.

Is it at a standstill?

Surely the Minister can answer that question? Is the work at a standstill or is it not? What kind of defence planning is this? A few months ago these men were bundled off because the Ministry could not even wait for an inquiry. What has happened now? What is the big change? Does not the Minister know?

The hon. Member who represents the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) spoke with a great deal less heat than the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), because I think he understands the situation.

But the right hon. Gentleman is the Minister of Defence.

I will make a full statement, but I do not think it is any good giving out litle bits of information here and there. Certain work has been carried out. If the hon. Gentleman will study my Answer, he will see that certain work is going on at the moment. It is not correct to say that everything is at a standstill.

asked the Minister of Defence why equipment was allowed to deteriorate as mentioned in the despatch of the Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces concerning the operations in Egypt.

The deterioration was due to the length of time the equipment had to remain in the ships. This equipment was loaded as part of the precautionary measures which the Government decided to take after the seizure of the Suez Canal by Egypt.

Surely there should have been closer liaison between the Chiefs of Staff and the Defence Committee to obviate this deterioration when, in effect, the forces were being held in readiness for what eventually became a military operation? If this equipment is to be carried into the future, surely the right hon. Gentleman sees that his own defence efforts will be rendered practically nugatory if we have to undertake such operations again?

With time most things deteriorate. All that the report said was that after a period of time it was necessary to take these vehicles and other equipment off the ships and, among other matters, to recharge the batteries and so on, which was a natural thing to do. That is not a grave reflection on the organisation. All it shows is that the equipment and vehicles were put on in very good time, and that the need to use them did not arise before the time when they had to be unloaded and refitted and recharged.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the specific organisational, tactical and technical matters forming the subject matter of the separate recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces in connection with the operations in Egypt.

These detailed recommendations for the conduct of limited war operations are being carefully studied by the Service authorities concerned.

All I am asking is whether, in view of the rather serious deficiencies shown in the despatch which has been published, the right hon. Gentleman can, without prejudicing security or the national interest, say anything more about the separate memorandum attached to the despatch?

In the main it contained recommendations of a general character, and the opinions and advice of General Keightley about the conduct of limited war operations of a general kind for the future. I do not think they would be appropriate for publication. They are in the nature of advice from serving officers to the Service Departments and the Chiefs of Staff.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Surely he detected in General Keightley's despatch some grave criticisms of defence preparations preceding the Suez affair? Can he say who in the Defence Department and Service Departments were responsible for those defects, and whether any disciplinary action was taken or is contemplated?

I have already answered a Question on that precise subject put to me, last week I think, by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger).

I do not know anything about that Answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to furnish me and other hon. Members with the Answer? Is he taking any action against those who were, according to the criticisms made by General Keightley, responsible for the defects?

I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the reply.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the statement in the despatch of the Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces that the operations in Egypt were prejudiced owing to the limited port facilities in Cyprus, he will make a statement concerning the future of Cyprus as a base for operational activities in the Eastern Mediterranean should events necessitate such action.

Cyprus has no large port, and we have no plans to make one.

In view of the large amount of money which has been spent in Cyprus in preparing there one of our bases in the Eastern Mediterranean, is the right hon. Gentleman going to say nothing more than the bland statement which he has just made, that Cyprus has been written off as a military base?

I was talking about a harbour. The main military usefulness of Cyprus is not as a naval base or necessarily as a jumping-off ground for military operations.

Has not it been stated over and over again in this House in debates on Cyprus that the reason we could not allow it to be a N.A.T.O. base was that we might want it for ourselves to operate on our own initiative in the Middle East? Now we are told that it is no use either as an air base or as a port.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said. I did not say anything about an air base. I said that the main military usefulness of Cyprus is not as a naval base or as a jumping-off ground for military operations. By "military" I meant the despatch of land forces from Cyprus. The right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that one does not use harbours to fly off aircraft unless they are seaplanes.

Does my right hon. Friend's Answer mean that the commitment undertaken earlier this year to invest a certain amount of money in a deep-water port has now been changed altogether? [Laughter.]

Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not laugh about that. The primary purpose of that scheme, which has nothing to do with me, was to provide better civilian harbour facilities for the island and people of Cyprus.

In view of his statement, would the Minister of Defence now state clearly that there is no further requirement for Cyprus as a British army base—a military base—quite apart from whatever requirements there may or may not be for a N.A.T.O. base for air operations of a deterrent character?

I am not going to say that there are no circumstances in which Cyprus might not be used for military purposes or as a base for military purposes. What I am prepared to say is that our prime need in the use of Cyprus as a base is to enable us to have facilities to operate aircraft in support of the Bagdad Pact.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Defence what consultations he has had with the United States authorities regarding the implementation by United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom of the readiness of long-range nuclear bombers to take off within a fifteen-minute warning; and to what extent our other defence arrangements have been geared to this new situation.

asked the Minister of Defence in what circumstances his approval was obtained for United States aircraft from British bases carrying hydrogen bombs to be in the air twenty-four hours a day.

This is a matter for the United States Strategic Air Command. It does not involve any change in our own defence arrangements.

Does the Minister of Defence, responsible for the defence of this country, mean to say that it is not of concern to the people here that there are in this country long-range bombers ready to take off within fifteen minutes to deliver the nuclear deterrent? Are these long-range nuclear bombers to be placed upon this knife-edge of readiness without any other precautions being taken to protect our civilian population?

We agreed—that is to say, the Labour Government agreed—that these American air bases should be set up in Great Britain. If they are to be there, and if they are to serve a purpose, I should have thought that the higher their state of readiness the better for all concerned. As for the second part of the supplementary question, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, there is a firm undertaking by the United States Government that these bases will not be used for military operations except in agreement with the British Government.

Does not this mean that an American general could signal his planes which were already in the air, and Russian and British cities could be devastated even before the British Cabinet had had time to meet? Who controls the fate of our country? If someone misinterprets a situation or a signal, will it not then be too late?

What I have already said is that we have a firm promise from the United States that they will not use these bases for military operations except in agreement with the British Government, and we trust them.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be valuable if the Royal Air Force could be at the same state of readiness?

It would, no doubt, cause alarm among hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that, in face of a changing situation and new statements made by those responsible for U.S. aircraft in this country, there is no consultation between the U.S. military authorities and his Department? Can they do what they please, apart from the assurances given about the future?

They can do what they please about their state of readiness, their training and their flying, but if it comes to the thing which really matters, which is active operations from bases in Great Britain, there is the agreement which ensures that we and they have to come to a joint decision.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when joint agreement was reached in 1948 the situation was entirely different? This type of aircraft just had not been built. This type of deterrent was not in existence. The kind of agreement valid in 1948 surely does not apply to a situation in which we have these machines ready at fifteen minutes' notice to take off to wipe out whole countries.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the nuclear bomb did not exist when the agreement was made. Of course it did.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is aware that his decision with regard to gratuities payable to those who leave the Regular Services as redundant and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force on disbandment, is being implemented in a most narrow and niggardly way, and that this is causing dissatisfaction to individuals and makes it difficult for hon. Members to respond to the appeals made by him to assist in recruitment of new forces; and if he will take steps to ensure a more liberal interpretation of his policy by all Departments.

I think that it will be generally agreed that the compensation scheme is generous and is being administered in a generous spirit. If there are any cases where it is thought that the treatment has not been fair, I will certainly have them looked into.

Will the Minister look into details which I have sent to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air concerning men who have left the Royal Air Force as redundant and who, because they have joined either B.E.A. or B.O.A.C., have been denied their gratuities on redundancy? Will he also look at those cases, of which I have sent details, of men who, having left the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, have been denied their bounty because they have shown exceptional keenness and joined another voluntary arm?

I will most certainly look into those cases myself.

asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements he is making for the preparation of schemes of pensions increases to assist retired Service pensioners.

I have nothing to add to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will not help his recruiting campaign if those who have already served their country in Her Majesty's Forces are not treated fairly? Will he bear in mind that widows' pensions are scandalously low? May I ask him whether he wants me to encourage him or to attack him to make him do his job properly in the Cabinet?

I should welcome any attention from the hon. Lady.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the future of Gibraltar.

I do not know what kind of statement the hon. Member has in mind.

If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT of a few months ago, he will discover that I asked the same Question in the summer and received the stalling Answer that he was not then in a position to make a statement, but would do so in due course, about the future of the dockyards and our defence position in Gibraltar, which is causing considerable uncertainty to those who work there and to the inhabitants of that very loyal Colony.

When the hon. Gentleman referred to a statement about the future of Gibraltar, that seemed to be a rather wider subject. I want to make it clear that Gibraltar is British, its inhabitants wish to remain British, and there is no question of discussing its future any more than the future of Portland Bill. As I explained to the hon. Member in reply to his earlier Question—it was not a stalling Answer—I have had full discussions with the Governor and the Service commanders and I think that we have made satisfactory arrangements for the defence of Gibraltar.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what the decision was?

asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of building trade workers unemployed at the latest convenient date and the comparable figure for 1956; and what are the future prospects in respect to the employment of building trade workers.

On 14th October, 1957, there were 32,500 unemployed people whose last employment was in the building and contracting industries, compared with 25,700 a year earlier. During the 12 months ending in September last the numbers employed fell by 31,000. There may be some further reduction in the numbers employed during the coming months but this will not necessarily be accompanied by a corresponding rise in unemployment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with many other people, I sincerely hope he is right and that there will not be any considerable increase in unemployment in the building trade?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on Government policy in relation to the possibility of courts of inquiry replacing the present system of arbitration tribunals in industrial disputes or, alternatively, of the tribunals publishing the reasons for their recommendations.

The purpose of a court of inquiry is to inquire into the causes and circumstances of a dispute and to report thereon to the Minister. A court of inquiry may of course make suggestions to bring the dispute to an end but an inquiry is no substitute for arbitration, the purpose of which is to settle the dispute by making an award. Tribunals are free to give the reasons for their awards but in practice they rarely do so.

As it is important not only that justice should be done but that it should be seen to be done, would not it be better if reasons were given a little more frequently?

There are arguments both ways. Tribunals often feel that if they pinpoint certain reasons they might add to or re-open the controversy which led to the arbitration. However, where they wish to pinpoint a special matter—as, for example, the provincial bus disputes, where the tribunal said that the award was deliberately linked to the differential—then I welcome that identification, and I should certainly be very glad if that were done.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree, on reflection, that the amount of interference by the Government in our industrial negotiation machinery has already been sufficiently disastrous without the appearance of any crackpot ideas of this sort?

I do not accept anything of the sort.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the desirability of legislation to make unlawful trade union practice in certain unions and certain areas of fining men who wish to work longer hours.

I am, I think, aware of the considerations that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but I do not consider that this is a matter for legislation.

While agreeing with my right hon. Friend that legislation would probably not be a desirable thing in this case, may I ask him whether he agrees that it is most regrettable that at the time when greater productivity is so important for everybody the A.E.U. in Sheffield should fine people who are willing to work longer hours?

Yes, I deplore many things, but I am sure that when members of an association, whether a trade union, political party or golf club, make rules and people do not like them, it is for the members themselves to change those rules. I do not think that we can do it from the House of Commons.

Is the Minister aware that this must be of purely academic interest to the hon. and gallant Member, since by no stretch of the imagination can it be thought that he will ever be brought before such a tribunal for working too long hours in the House?

That applies to us all and, with great respect to the hon. Lady, she should remember the example of the pot calling the kettle black.

asked the Minister of Labour when the Report of the Joint Advisory Committee on Foundry Goggles will be published.

It is proposed to publish the Report when research and development work which is now in progress as recommended by the Committee enables us to give more comprehensive and authoritative advice than is at present possible. Meanwhile copies of the Report are being sent to all the organisations interested in this problem.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that trade union representatives are concerned and impatient about the delay? Could not the Report be published before Christmas?

I can assure the hon. Member that we are anxious to have the Report published, but whereas the Committee came to the general conclusion that plastic was to be preferred to glass for these protective goggles, further research work is required for specific advice to be given about the form of plastic. Before we publish a final Report we want to be able to have that specific advice.

asked the Minister of Labour how the United Kingdom delegate voted on the Convention and recommendations concerning the protection and integration of indigenous and other tribal and semi-tribal populations in independent countries at the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation.

The United Kingdom Government delegates abstained on both the Convention and the recommendation to which the hon. Member refers.

Is it not a rather regrettable position, in view of the fact that this Convention covered provisions for land, recruitment and conditions of labour for indigenous and tribal people, education and administrative questions, and that the French and Belgian Governments, and even General Franco's Government, supported the Convention? Is there really any justification for the British Government delegates abstaining?

Yes, I think there is. Part of the answer is given by the hon. Member himself, because other Governments—for example, Canada and Australia—which are more concerned with this Convention and recommendation, also abstained, as did a great number of countries. Although we were in sympathy, as we made clear, with the object of both the Convention and the recommendation, we thought that it went too wide and was inappropriate because it included, for example, matters relating to land, education and public health within the scope of an I.L.O. convention.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to find alternative employment for the people of the Spondon area of Derbyshire made redundant by the merger of Messrs. Courtaulds and British Celanese and the recession in the rayon industry.

The firm has given my local officers full facilities to register redundant workers at the factory in advance of discharge, Over 1,400 have left the firm's employment since September and the majority of the 107 who are still registered as unemployed are being considered for employment by other firms who have notified vacancies.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he devote his special attention to the fact that a number of the staff who have been made redundant are senior staff, such as chemists, engineers and higher administrative staff, of the age group of forty-five and upwards, and that they are in an exceptionally difficult position? Will he give that matter his special attention?

I have looked at that side of the matter. I think that my technical and scientific register may be able to help, but only a small number—I believe twenty-six—have so far applied. I think that my Answer and the hon. Member's Question may help to draw attention to the position.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to state when the survey on the pottery industry will be completed; and whether he will give an assurance that the report will be printed with as much detail as possible.

The survey team is now engaged in the preparation of this report. The question of publication cannot be settled before the report has been received and studied, but I will see that the hon. Member's point is kept in mind.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that Answer. Will he bear in mind that this type of report will be of very great interest not only to other industries in this country but to industries all over the world, and that we shall look forward to having it published in full detail?

Certainly. I think that the hon. Member can be assured of that.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in the setting up of joint industrial councils the Government contemplated that agreements reached by industrial councils should carry with them the same obligation of observance as exists in the case of other agreements between employers' associations and trade unions, and that this has become the basis of negotiations by joint councils; under what arrangement this has been modified; and what Government Departments are affected by this change.

I have no knowledge of the introduction of any changes or modifications affecting agreements reached between employers' associations and trade unions. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Is the Minister aware that the recent action of the Government falls far below the standard of negotiations set up between the trade union movement and the employers? Is he aware that four years after the First World War the Agricultural Wages Act was destroyed by the Government, and that the trade unionists feel that this Government are taking steps to destroy the negotiating machinery set up after years of strenuous work by them?

I know that there is a difference of opinion upon this matter between the two sides of the House, but I am quite certain that no such interference as the hon. Member suggests has in fact been made. In regard to the particular instance of the National Health Service Whitley Council, which is in his mind, it was the intention of Parliament, for special reasons, with which the House is familiar, that the Minister should be in the position of exercising final approval of the recommendation, and not the decision, that was reached.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will write to the joint secretaries of all joint industrial councils informing them that the Government have no intention of interfering with any joint decisions reached by joint industrial councils affecting wages or conditions of labour.

No, Sir. I believe the position is perfectly clear to them already.

Speaking as a member of a joint industrial council, may I ask the Minister to accept as a fact that doubt and confusion has been caused by various Government statements? Will he, therefore, remove that doubt by making it clear—as I think is his intention—that he has no intention of interfering with decisions of joint industrial councils?

I think that I have made that clear. The hon. Member has great experience of this matter. He is on a joint industrial council, and he knows that he is there negotiating with his own and his colleagues' money. Whatever agreement he comes to with the trade unions concerned has no more to do with either myself or any other Minister of the Crown than what he chooses to pay his secretary. It is entirely a matter for the people concerned, and therefore the case of Government intervention does not arise.

Do the Government propose to change the composition of Whitley Councils in order to bring them into line with what he has now said?

No. Considering the question apart from the Whitley Council field for the moment, the Government play no part in the great field of industrial councils. In many cases, such as in the Civil Service, the management side is composed of Government representatives, and therefore they are also the representatives of the employers. It is only in the special case to which I make special reference that Parliament—not the Government—has laid down the special position of the Minister, and he must fulfil his duty as each case comes to him.

But surely, if it is the intention of the Government not to grant any increase which might be recommended by a Whitley Council, might not it be better for the Government to deal directly with the staff side, in which case every agreement arrived at would be accepted?

But we have made it clear from this Box that that is not the case.

asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet received a copy of a resolution from the Scottish section of the National Union of Bank Employees; if he will state its terms; and what action he proposes to take.

I have received through the Secretary of State for Scotland a copy of the resolution, the terms of which are as follows:

"This meeting of Scottish Bank staffs calls upon the managements of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the British Linen Bank to meet representatives of the National Union of Bank Employees for the purpose of establishing mutually acceptable negotiating machinery."

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two banks concerned are refusing to recognise the Scottish secretary of the bank employees in matters which should be negotiated between the two bodies? Does not he agree that this is contrary to all accepted trade union practice, and will not he indicate his disapproval of the attitude of the two banks concerned?

No, Sir. I have answered the hon. Member's Question, which calls for no action from me—and his supplementary question goes much wider. As I understand it, the position remains the same, both on behalf of the banks and the union, as it was when we tried to bring them together a year ago.

Will the Minister again consult the chairmen of the five banks in order to bring about some solution in relation to the National Union of Bank Employees, which holds a fairly large membership in those banks? Does not he agree that this is a matter where his personal intervention could be of very great value?

I am always ready to look at the position again. I do not want to go into the matter by way of question and answer, but I would point out that the supplementary question put only one side of the matter, and that there is another which is also strongly felt.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that more than 5,000 of the 20,000 workers in the garment manufacturing trade in London are wholly unemployed and the remainder working only three days per week; and what steps he proposes to take to provide alternative employment for these skilled workers.

I am unable to understand the basis of the hon. Member's figures. The number of insured employees in the garment making industries in London is estimated at 134,400. Of these the latest complete figures show that on 14th October, 1,012 adults and 39 boys and girls were wholly unemployed. Provisional figures for 11th November show that 1,418 adults were then wholly unemployed. In addition 1,700 men and women were thought to be losing at least one day's work a week. My local officers are doing all they can by submitting wholly unemployed workers to suitable vacancies.

Is the Minister aware that the situation is deteriorating so rapidly that it may account for the difference between the figures which he has quoted and those supplied to me by the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers about their members? Three firms, employing 1,250 workers, have completely shut down and the Master Tailors Association says that 90 per cent. of its 10,000 workers are on short-time. It is a serious situation, and I should be glad if the Minister would have another look at it.

I will certainly have another look at it, but I am sure that the hon. Member's figures must be a very long way out. The figures that I have given are for 11th November, and therefore there cannot have been a very steep deterioration.

Would the Minister agree that the difference in the figures may well be accounted for by the fact that the figures he has given are those of people registered, whereas the figures in the Question include women who get no benefits and therefore do not bother to register?

No, the figures are too far apart to be accounted for in that way. The difference is twenty-five times.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to ensure that Regular officers who have to make up their minds whether to volunteer for early retirement, or who face premature termination, are given adequate information about the prospects in civil life.

In close co-operation with my Service colleagues, I have made arrangements for specially selected officers of my Department to take part in a series of lectures and individual interviews which the Services are at present conducting at stations both in this country and overseas. These lectures and interviews have been going on since the middle of September and the present round is due to be completed by the end of this month. Officers who may be affected by redundancy are thus being given the chance of receiving early information and advice about the possibilities in civilian life if they should leave the Services.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his attitude in this matter. May I ask him to consider making this a permanent feature of the services provided by his Department, because the knowledge that help will be given at the end of his Service years will be of considerable help to a recruit?

That is true. It is one of the reasons why we have started this scheme, and will keep it going as long as necessary.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of recommendation No. 7 of the Willis-Jackson Report, he will now grant exemption from National Service to science and technology graduates entering establishments of further education.

I understand the recommendation in the Willis-Jackson Report will mean that science and engineering graduates with second class honours degrees should be granted indefinite deferment on the same conditions as men with first class honours, that is on taking any employment for which a science or engineering degree is required. I have received a similar proposal from the Federation of British Industries and have referred it to my Technical Personnel Committee for its advice.

While thanking the Minister for that sympathetic Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind that we already exempt science graduates for teaching, some arts graduates for teaching and first-class science honours graduates for teaching in technical institutions, that there is a shortage of science teachers in technical institutions, and that this would be an important contribution to the expansion of technical education?

Yes, that is why I have asked my Technical Personnel Committee, which will be considering this matter in the course of the next week or two, to study this proposal.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will reconsider his decision not to grant deferment of National Service to the young man who was the subject of a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary on 8th November to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne.

No, Sir. I am afraid I cannot justifiably alter the decision.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me last week that about 100,000 men were called up for National Service each year, and that the Defence White Paper says that a total of 375,000 in the Armed Forces will he sufficient in four years' time? In that case, does not he agree that a man who is working seriously and who has great hopes of getting his Higher National Certificate ought to be granted ordinary deferment to enable him to gain that certificate?

As the hon. Member knows, the man was granted deferment for the period of his apprenticeship and for a period to try to qualify for his Higher National Certificate. It is because he failed that examination that that part of his deferment cannot be continued. It would be more satisfactory if the hon Member would come and talk to me privately about the case.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce a pilot scheme by which all recruits for the Services who are willing are subjected to tuberculin tests, and negative reactors urged to accept B.C.G. vaccination, before entering the Services.

No, Sir. Suitable facilities are already available to men in the Armed Forces for tuberculin tests and B.C.G. vaccination.

Would it be worth while to try to press strongly for a pilot scheme? I know that the Minister fully realises that tuberculosis contracted in the Armed Forces represents a very heavy loss to the country, both in manpower and finance.

Yes. I think that the position is satisfactory in the Armed Forces, but, as I understand the hon. Member, he is suggesting bringing this in at an earlier stage than that of the medical boards. I do not think that that is practicable, because medical boards were brought together for a special purpose, and they could not do the ordinary follow-up after seventy-two hours, and so on, which would be necessary.