asked the Minister of Defence (1) the present duration of the agreement permitting the stationing of foreign troops in Great Britain;

Permission for the establishment of American air bases and forces in Britain was given by Mr. Attlee's Government. There was no formal agreement and no precise conditions were laid down for the termination of this arrangement.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, welcome as our American friends are on our ground, the presence in this country of forces which carry thermo-nuclear weapons for training, and the establishment in this country of missile bases over which we understand they will exercise some control, make it increasingly difficult to maintain a separate foreign policy and quite impossible to maintain a separate atomic and thermo-nuclear policy? As the presence of our own troops on the Continent is permitting France to pursue a foreign policy of which we actively disapprove, has no the time come for a little rethinking?

The time has long ago passed when one could pursue an entirely independent foreign policy. The American forces will remain here so long as both Governments feel that it is in the common interest for the purpose of common defence that they should do so. We certainly have no intention of asking them to leave. I am convinced that they are making an important contribution to peace.

asked the Minister of Defence what answer he has sent to the letter giving information concerning the derequisitioning of the La Salle College in Hong Kong sent at his request by the owners of the college.

I discussed this matter with representatives of the Order when I was in Hong Kong a few months ago. The question of the release of the college is dependent upon certain military decisions. I am making every effort to clear the position up as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is a very modern school which is vitally necessary? It sometimes has three sets of classes a day now in order to try to get people educated. As next to nothing seems to have been done about the college, can my right hon. Friend give any idea when he is likely to be able to give a decision?

As I have said, I had a good talk with the representatives of the Order. I very much regret that they have been left in a state of uncertainty for so long. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will try to speed up a decision as much as I can.

asked the Minister of Defence the maximum firepower, as compared with the Hiroshima bomb, of the tactical atomic weapons being distributed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces with the assent of Her Majesty's Government; on whose decision they may be used; to what extent their use is assimilated to that of conventional arms and not subject to the political restrictions applied to the use of strategic nuclear weapons; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Defence what agreements or understandings exist between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government about political control of the use of tactical atomic weapons; and if these agreements treat such weapons on the same basis as strategic nuclear weapons.

These are operational matters which I would prefer not to discuss in public.

Cannot the Minister of Defence give some indication of the distinction between tactical atomic weapons and nuclear weapons? Is it, for instance, correct that N.A.T.O. generals have stated that a tactical atomic weapon is a nuclear weapon with up to two-and-a-half times the firepower of the Hiroshima bomb? Surely there is no military secret about that; it is a matter of definition.

It would obviously be giving away a military secret to say exactly what the strength of the bomb is. If I had to describe off the cuff the difference between a tactical and a strategic weapon, I should say that a tactical weapon is one which is designed to be used in direct support of the land battle.

Will the Minister of Defence address himself to the question of control over the use of these weapons? Has not it been disclosed that the Government have an understanding or agreement that H-bombs may not be used without the consent of the Cabinet? Has not that been revealed? We want to know, in view of the power of the tactical atomic weapons in the hands of the forces in Western Europe, what the political understanding or agreement is about the consent or authority which has to be given for the use of such weapons.

I do not think it desirable that I should discuss what the arrangements within N.A.T.O. are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am sure that the Soviet Government would be just as much interested in the answer as the hon. Member is.

asked the Minister of Defence the provisions in the new Anglo-American agreement granting the consent of Her Majesty's Government in advance to the United States Government to order its bombers and missile bases in this country into action when in the view of the United States of America any member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been attacked anywhere; how these provisions relate to the United States of America engaging in hostilities in pursuance of its commitments under the Eisenhower Doctrine or of its alliances with the present Governments of South Korea and Formosa; and whether he will make a statement.

There is no such agreement.

Is there no agreement governing the use of missile bases in this country? Is there no understanding as to the circumstances in which the United States is entitled to use its own judgment, in view of Mr. Dulles's statement of 19th December that the United States will not submit to veto powers by any foreign country on measures taken in self-defence by the United States Administration, in its own judgment? How do those measures relate to the control system?

Since the agreement on which the whole of the hon. Member's Question is based does not exist, I suggest that he does not pursue the matter any further.

asked the Minister of Defence the proportion of the gross national product and of the total budget, respectively, absorbed by defence; the total of the charges for the retention of forces abroad; the percentage of the working population, either in the Services or supporting them; the proportion of the metal-using industries devoted to defence; and the proportion of qualified scientists and engineers engaged on military work.

The hon. Member asks six questions.

Will this information be contained in the forthcoming Defence White Paper? It was contained in last year's White Paper, and would it not be valuable to have the same information in the forthcoming one?

I do not think that the precise figures were contained in last year's Defence White Paper. Some were, but, of course, last year's White Paper came a month later than this one, and that is why it is more difficult.

asked the Minister of Defence what reduction in the holdings of components and spare parts for naval, military and air force equipment has been achieved by the increased use of rapid carriage to overseas units by air instead of by surface transport.

I am afraid that statistics do not show to what extent reductions in holdings can be attributed to the use of air transport.

Is not it important that there should be some figures to show this, because is it not a fact that other armies and air forces have found that there have been considerable savings in stockholding by the use of air instead of surface transport?

We are doing what we can, but one must not exaggerate the savings that can be obtained by this method. If we carry it too far, we will find that it will cost a great deal more.

How does the Minister know that it will cost a great deal more, if he has no figures? Is he not trying to collate some information and statistics about this matter?

All I know is that there comes a point where it is cheaper to keep more stores on the ground than to carry them around in the air.

asked the Minister of Defence what decisions have been reached in regard to the manning of the intermediate missile bases in Great Britain.

asked the Minister of Defence what agreements have now been made with the United States of America about British bases for nuclear missiles.

asked the Minister of Defence whether the agreement for the supply of ballistic missiles by the United States of America to this country has yet been concluded; how many launching bases are to be established for their use in this country; and in which localities.

asked the Minister of Defence what missiles of United States origin are to be installed at Royal Air Force stations.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he has a further statement to make about the number and location of missile bases in this country and the supply of warheads.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is aware of the opposition in Scotland to rocket bases being placed there; and if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America relating to the establishment of intermediate range ballistic missile bases in these islands.

asked the Minister of Defence if he has yet decided where each of the proposed rocket missile sites in Scotland will be located; how much land has been, and will be, acquired for these purposes; and when the work of construction will begin.

I would refer hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on 5th February, to which at present I have nothing to add.

Is the Minister of Defence aware that that reply is far from satisfactory? Will he bear in mind that there are many people of moderate views in this country who feel that it would be a suicidal policy to have missile bases anywhere in Britain, particularly if the Americans have the last word? In view of the revelations about the slackness of our Government—[Interruption.]—wait for it; hon. Members will get certified in a minute. In view of the revelations about the slackness of our Government in relation to the carrying of H-bombs by American 'planes on patrol here, is not the Minister aware that many people will demand safeguards to ensure that we, and not the Americans, have the final word, and with no escape clauses?

I think that when the agreement is published, the hon. Member will find it to be much more satisfactory than he seems to imagine.

If, in 1939, we had had the degree of Anglo-American co-operation that we have now, might not that have averted the Second World War?

Is the Minister aware that there is very widespread concern and resistance in the country to the idea of establishing these bases, which are regarded by many people as valueless for defence and both technically and militarily an investment in obsolescence, and a very considerable waste of time and money when every effort is being bent by himself and the Cabinet towards saving money in respect of military installations and preparations? Does he realise that there is very strong resentment that before every effort has been made towards international agreement with the Soviet Government, we should be undertaking this vast spending, and the surrender of British sovereignty, in respect of the custody of nuclear warheads, to the American Government?

I do not want to anticipate the agreement, when concluded, as I think that it will be, quite shortly. The terms, apart from strictly operational details, will be fully published, and hon. Members will be able to judge for themselves. I would ask them to accept my assurance. They will, I am sure, find that many of the anxieties expressed are groundless.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that we will have the information in time for the defence debates the week after next, or the foreign affairs debate next week?

The defence debate, I should think, almost certainly. I am not sure about the foreign affairs debate.

Can the Minister answer just one simple question? Since the bases are not to be established in Scotland, can he say how many other parts of the country have indicated the desire to have them?

There is a Question on the Order Paper about the desirability of siting these bases in Scotland—

It is mine.

Then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the Answer to his own Question later on.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister intimated that he was answering my Question No. 16 now.

I am sorry. I think the hon. Member himself misled me. I said that later in the Order Paper there was a Question about Scotland. He said "It is mine," and I thought that his Question was one of the later ones. There are some Questions later on about the siting of bases in Scotland.

As to Question No. 33, which affects Scotland, and to which the Minister purported to reply just now, is he aware that there is a strong body of opinion that if missile bases are to be provided they should be mobile, easily concealed, and at sea, for instance, in the Atlantic Ocean, but not in large centres of population where people will be exposed to great risk unnecessarily?

I should be most grateful to the hon. and learned Member for assisting me in defining the operational requirement.

Is it correct to assume from the right hon. Gentleman's original reply, the contents of which I still recall, that the agreement, or the published part of the agreement, will clearly indicate that the control of these missile bases will finally vest in British hands?

My hon. Friend will not get an answer to that.

Of course the hon. Member will get an answer. The answer is that the terms of the agreement will be fully published.—[Interruption.]—I dare say that I could give reassuring Answers to lots of the Questions put to me, but it is a thoroughly improper thing when negotiations between two Governments are not completed—[Interruption.] They are not completed until the agreement is actually signed, and until then it is highly improper to start revealing bits and pieces of an agreement.

Does the Minister agree that the agreement is, or will be, of sufficient importance in relation to great issues of foreign policy which have been discussed in this House recently, and will again be discussed next week, to be brought before the House for formal approval?

That is not a matter for me, but I will certainly convey it to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Is the Minister aware that there is strong opposition throughout the length and breadth of the land to the whole idea of missile bases being established in this country? Does not he think that, in a matter where people feel that the whole future of the country and the future of their children and coming generations is at stake, this should be an issue at a General Election? Will he give an assurance that this discredited Government will come forward and ask the opinion of the people before putting the agreement into operation?

rose—

On a point of order. I understand that supplementary questions on this Question are exhausted. If that is so, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Defence how many representations, and from whom, he has received for and against the establishment in Scotland of missile bases; and what replies he has sent.

I have received three letters on this subject from this House seeking information. None expressed any opinion for or against siting rockets in Scotland.

Will the Minister take it from me that there is a very widespread body of opinion in Scotland against spending Treasury money on ineffective bases, as they would be in Scotland, and unnecessarily exposing the people to undue risk?

The location of the sites will, of course, be determined by operational considerations. If it is thought desirable to site rockets in a certain area, I have no doubt that the people of that area will accept their share of responsibility in the defence of our country.

asked the Minister of Defence what has been the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's request to the North Atlantic Council to review the financial conditions on which United Kingdom forces are maintained on the mainland of Europe.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent, following the Federal German Government's decision not to pay support costs, the British military contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be further reduced.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the need to reduce defence expenditure, he will withdraw British forces from Germany to the extent that the Federal Government refuses to pay support costs.

The financial conditions on which British forces are stationed in Europe are still under discussion by the North Atlantic Council.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the position has now become really humiliating? He himself failed in negotiations. N.A.T.O. has failed. M. Spaak has failed. Does he not think that the time has come when we should make perfectly clear to the Germans that, if they are not prepared to meet the £50 million involved here, we shall bring the troops home; and will he make clear to the Germans that we are not prepared to accept, in lieu of a contribution, the suggestion that they deposit £100 million here for the purchase of arms? Will he remind them that, because they failed to purchase the S.R.177 there is a blight over the Isle of Wight now, and, further, will he make clear to the rest of the Ministers that the British public will not support a Government who are prepared to—

Order. The hon. Member's Question asks what is the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's request. There appears to be no outcome yet; it has not been revealed what the end of the discussions is. The hon. Member is really giving his own views about what the outcome should be.

Can the Minister tell the House what will be included in the forthcoming White Paper on defence as the German contribution?

I have made it clear that these discussions are still going on in the North Atlantic Council—

Hot them up.

I do not think that it would hot them up if I were to discuss the matter in the House at this stage.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, while there may be a case for a complete revision of the defence system of Western Europe as it now exists, we are being asked to shoulder an unfair proportion of the cost at a time when our total defence expenditure is imposing a very severe strain upon our economy, which, will he not agree, tends to lessen our effective resistance in the cold war in which we are engaged?

I think that everyone in the House is aware of the serious burden upon our balance of payments which would be involved if we had to make a large transfer across the exchange, and that, of course, is the issue at present under discussion.

Does the Minister recall that the agreement to sanction West German rearmament was commended to the House on the basis that it would relieve some of the defence burden upon this country, and will he, at any rate, give an assurance that he will not enter into an agreement or will take the steps necessary to ensure that it does not mean an additional financial burden upon Britain?

I think that the hon. Gentleman can be reassured on that point.

In relation to one of his answers to a supplementary question about negotiations still going on, may I ask the Minister whether he is still optimistic that some satisfactory compromise will emerge, or is he of the opinion, as has been suggested by Press statements, that the German Government have made their final answer and are not prepared to consider a compromise?

I do not think that it would be really wise or helpful if I were to express optimism or pessimism about the outcome of rather delicate negotiations.

asked the Minister of Defence what change there has been in the Government's policy announced last year as to the relative contribution of missiles and manned fighters in the air defence of the United Kingdom.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the issue of the White Paper on Defence tomorrow.

Is the Minister aware that, although that may be a perfectly fair answer today, because the White Paper is to be issued tomorrow, it has been the fact that week after week recently he has been refusing to answer questions on the ground that the White Paper is coming out, and will he not agree that we cannot have the same practice adopted here as is adopted in regard to the Budget, with a complete black-out on Questions and Answers because the White Paper is coming out?

I am glad the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has had a perfectly fair answer today.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that any increases in Service pay and allowances will be accompanied by increases in widows' pensions of both officers and other ranks.

I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Am I to understand from that that the matter is still fluid? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I think that all Governments have treated these widows absolutely scandalously, and is he aware further that, if I could find a way of voting against the Government on this issue I would gladly do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are just as had as the others —perhaps worse. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, kindly take this request to the Cabinet? Otherwise, I shall have to consider some other ways of making an attack.

I think that my hon. Friend has made her views very clear.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) to what extent in his defence plans he now assumes that a British army in Germany is essential for the defence of Great Britain;

asked the Minister of Defence the cost of maintaining British Forces in Germany, with particular reference to the strategic reserve.

asked the Minister of Defence how many British troops it is intended shall be stationed in Germany during the current year.

asked the Minister of Defence what further reductions will be made in British commitments in Germany.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reduce our forces in Germany.

I would ask hon. Members to await the publication of the Defence White Paper tomorrow.

In anticipation of the White Paper, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how, in the event of this country being bombed, our soldiers in Germany will be able to defend their women and children at home?

On Question No. 29, my Question which has been included with the others, do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes in the White Paper to be issued tomorrow to tell us to what extent it is proposed to reduce our forces in Germany? Does he propose to do that, and, if he does so, does he intend to suggest that we ought to reduce our forces in Germany to the extent that the Germans increase their forces?

I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the White Paper as soon as it is issued.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we do not expect to be treated with contempt when we ask a fair question? We are not seeking to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, but we merely wish to ascertain what is the position. This is a vital matter of interest to all hon. Members, and one which justifies a rather better Answer.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing I want to do is to treat him with any discourtesy. I have great respect for him and for the service he has rendered to this country. All I wanted to make clear is that, in the White Paper, I am dealing carefully, in a considered manner, with what is a difficult and delicate question, the size of our forces in Germany, at a time when difficult negotiations are in progress. I would prefer it, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow it, if he were to read the full and considered statement there—it is longer than I can give in answer to supplementary questions—rather than ask me to give off-the-cuff short answers on the matter.

Is the Minister aware that Question No. 19 is concerned not with the future shape of our forces or the cost of our forces in Germany, but with the current cost of keeping them in Germany? May we not have that simple figure now?

I have not got it with me. Subject to correction, I think it is about 54 million in Deutschmarks, which is the important figure. That may be a slightly incorrect figure.

Will the Minister give an assurance, whatever the White Paper may say tomorrow, that the number of our forces in Germany will be conditioned upon our getting an adequate financial contribution from the German Government?

That is, of course, one of the issues that I shall be dealing with in the White Paper.

Why has the right hon. Gentleman arranged for the publication of the Defence White Paper the day after he is "reachable" by Questions in this House? Would it not have been perhaps a little more courageous to have published the White Paper this morning or yesterday, knowing that he is the first Minister to answer Questions today?

I must say that that question did not occur to me, but if the White Paper had been published this morning it would have made my task now very much easier.

asked the Minister of Defence his estimates of the approximate extent of Britain's financial participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's radar screen now under construction, the total cost of the screen, and its completion date.

asked the Minister of Defence the cost of Britain's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's radar screen; and to what extent this screen is estimated to be effective in giving warning of ballistic missiles.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) what the British contribution is to date to the cost of building the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's radar screen; what the total British contribution is expected to be; and when the radar screen will be completed;

The N.A.T.O. radar chain in Europe is designed to give early warning of attack by aircraft only. It would not be proper for me to give information about cost or date of completion.

But since the screen is useless against the missiles which Russia already possesses, is it not out of date even before it is built? Will the Minister consider stopping this colossal waste of money and manpower?

Bomber aircraft will constitute a very important threat for a long time to come.

Why should the figure of our financial contribution towards this radar screen be concealed? Is not the Minister aware that some very large figures have been quoted in the American Press and other places, and will not he give the figure, especially as a very large number of people feel that this project is obsolescent in the light of the statements made by the leader of N.A.T.O. itself about the nature of the attack to be considered?

Why it is improper is that it is not right for each member of an alliance of fifteen nations to hand out information about costs and, above all, about the dates of completion of operational equipment. What I can say is that, of the cost, Britain's share will be about 10 per cent.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent he is using the Decca system for the defence of Great Britain and British shipping and aircraft.

The Decca navigational system is used in all Her Majesty's ships and in certain military aircraft operating in areas where the necessary ground facilities are available.

Is the Minister aware that I am very satisfied about the reply, and I am sure that all mariners will be also.

I am very glad indeed to satisfy the hon. and learned Member for once.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) if he will state in detail over which counties Royal Air Force and United States bombers armed with hydrogen bombs regularly fly; and to what extent their routes exclude built-up areas;

With permission, I will answer these Questions together.

On a point of order. I do not see why these two Questions should be coupled together. One concerns routes and areas of this country, and the other the reports from—

Order. The hon. Member should listen to the Answer, and then he will hear what it is.

I think that the hon. Member will see that the Answer is pertinent to his Questions.

Is the Minister aware that the earth tremor which rocked the six Eastern Counties recently touched off fears that an American nuclear bomber had crashed; and indeed the Sculthorpe American air base was swamped with telephone calls from people fearing such a disaster? Does he really think it worth while to continue this potential threat to any aggressor when there is such a constant fear in the minds of people of this country? Further, if, as the Lord Privy Seal has consistently said in the house, there is no danger from a nuclear armed bomber crashing, why is it that American bombers have purposely dropped nuclear bombs in the Pacific and Atlantic when fearing a crash?

It is only my opinion, but I do not think there is so much alarm among the people of this country as hon. Members opposite would like to imagine.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Governments voted in the recent General Assembly of the United Nations with the United Kingdom in the minority of six against the 59 Governments which supported a resolution deploring that South Africa had not responded to United Nations' requests to modify its policies of racial discrimination.

The delegations of Australia, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Portugal, as well as the United Kingdom, voted against the adoption of this resolution.

Is not this a very insignificant minority with which Britain should be associated in the United Nations against an overwhelming majority of 59? Is not it desirable that this country should make it clear that we stand against this obnoxious practice of apartheid in South Africa?

As the hon. Member probably knows quite well, the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter rests entirely on our strong and consistent views of the importance of Article 2 (7) of the Charter. Our representatives at the United Nations have always refrained from expressing any view on the merits or otherwise of the racial policies of the Government of the Union of South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the delegate of the United Kingdom voted in the recent General Assembly of the United Nations on the resolution on Algeria.

The reply to this Question was given to the hon. Member on 19th December.

Since 19th December, however, there have been developments. Whilst admittedly our own record is tarnished by what has happened in Cyprus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is it not desirable that this country should protest against the uncivilised war in Algeria, as illustrated this week by the criminal bombing of the village in Tunisia?

Order. That was far beyond the Question on the Order Paper. Mr. Rankin.

On a point of order. I put a Question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who replied that he had given me an earlier Answer. Since that earlier Answer, there have been developments, and my Question and the supplementary question referred to those developments.

The hon. Member should have put down a Question with regard to those later developments. That is not what he asked in the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet considered the second interim report of the United Nations Committee investigating the Bang-Jensen case; and, as that Committee has now come to the conclusion that the documents are of doubtful validity, if he will now withdraw the abridged report of the United Nations Special Committee on Hungary published by his Department.

My right hon. and learned Friend has considered the two interim reports of the Committee of Investigation. They deal only with Mr. Bang-Jensen's handling of certain papers. The reports do not in any way cast doubt either on the bona fides of the witnesses who appeared before the Special Committee on Hungary, or on the evidence considered by that Committee, or on the validity of its report. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore "No, Sir."

As the first report of this Committee states categorically

"The same irresponsibility which has marked his method of handling the papers may have brought about their alteration or defacement in respects impossible now to ascertain. Accordingly such information as may now be embodied in them is no longer entitled to credence."

The papers which Mr. Bang-Jensen retained in his personal custody contained material which might have identified Hungarian witnesses who wished to remain anonymous, as was, I think, natural in the circumstances. The Committee thinks he handled those papers in such a way that they might have been tampered with and the Committee, therefore, ordered that they should be destroyed, and that was carried out on 24th January. I think the implications of the hon. Member's Questions have done a disservice not only to the people of Hungary, but to the United Nations whose Committee produced such an excellent report.

Having regard to the fact that the reports which have appeared about this document in both The Times and the Manchester Guardian give a very different picture of its contents from the one which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just given to the House, will he see that the whole report is made available as a White Paper published by the Government so that we can all form our own opinion as to whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is right or wrong in the supplementary answer he has just given?

I think that if the hon. Member will study my reply and the report he will find that I am right. I will certainly give consideration to the question he raised about a White Paper.