asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) on how many occasions his Department has intervened to prevent the exhibition of films on television or in the cinemas for political or diplomatic reasons;

(2) why his Department intervened to prevent the showing of the film "Holiday in Sylt" on Independent Television on 8th May.

The answer to the first Question is "None, Sir". The second Question therefore does not arise.

Is the Foreign Secretary then suggesting that the radio correspondents of practically all the Conservative newspapers, including the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express, are liars? Is he aware they all reported that this film was withdrawn by Associated Rediffusion as the result of consultations with the Foreign Office and of representations received from the Foreign Office? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman categorically denying and repudiating those reports, which were not denied at the time?

I have no idea of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing my attention. If he will show me them, I will consider them. It is quite untrue that we intervened to prevent the showing of any film.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to propose in the United Nations that a special commission be established alongside of, or as part of, the Disarmament Special Commission to study the transference of armaments to a world security authority, with a view to supervised and controlled total comprehensive disarmament, in view of the Government's suggestions in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to sound opinion abroad with a view to implementing the suggestion of a world security authority with an international inspectorate backed by an international police force.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the proposals recently made by Her Majesty's Government that a world security authority should be created by the United Nations to enable complete disarmament to be enforced.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence did not make any proposals. He suggested that we should think again about the feasibility of achieving comprehensive disarmament in a single step after due preparation. He examined what such an approach might involve. As my right hon. Friend also indicated, Her Majesty's Government's policy is to support the plan approved by the United Nations by 56 votes to 9 last autumn. That is not inconsistent with further thought being given to the feasibility of securing agreement on a more comprehensive plan. I am considering the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu).

May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Minister very much and warmly welcome the suggestion that Ministers of other nations besides our own defence Minister should begin to think in terms of this novel and potentially fruitful idea?

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the very great encouragement which the statement of his right hon. Friend gave the other day to many of us who think that a world security authority offers the best hope of securing world peace, and will he press on in this direction and assure us that the whole Government will be behind him if he does?

I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) for what they have just said. My position is that it is certainly a matter to which further thought should be given, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence was careful to point out, he was not making actual proposals. I think that would be premature.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that most of us on this side of the House regarded the statement as a vague adumbration, neither precise nor novel?

Hear, hear.

The right hon. Gentleman says that, but of course the statements are completely consistent with the Anglo-French plan of 1954.

If we are ultimately to get a paramount world authority, which I think everybody desires—[HON. MEMBERS: No."]—is it not probable that it will have to evolve, and would it not be a good idea if the present United Nations Emergency Force could be progressively replaced by a directly recruited United Nations constabulary? Would that not be a definite step in the right direction?

I certainly agree with the hon. Member that this concept would have to evolve. The rest of his supplementary question is the subject matter of the next Question on the Order Paper.

Since over the last eighteen months Her Majesty's Government have been saying in general terms that the United Nations should have some form of international force, will they propose at the forthcoming Assembly of the United Nations that a committee should be set up to study this matter in detail and to make proposals?

The right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I just said. That is the subject matter of the next Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose at the United Nations, or elsewhere, the creation of an individually-recruited permanent United Nations force; and whether Her Majesty's Government will, with the concurrence of the territory in question, offer a territory in the Colonial Empire as a permanent base for it.

As I informed the House on 19th February, Heir Majesty's Government hope that something of a permanent nature will develop from the United Nations Emergency Force, but we would like to await Mr. Hammarskjöld's report on the prospects of this before going further. The report is expected in the autumn. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement of Mr. Hammarskjöld about the present United Nations observers in the Lebanon and how he is stated to have said that if they were to undertake any police work they would have to be much more numerous and well-equipped, and that the thing could not be organised in a hurry?

That is quite true and quite consistent with Mr. Hammarskjöld's words when he said: There is need for careful analysis and study of the U.N.E.F. experience in all its aspects in order to give the United Nations a sound foundation, should the organisation wish to build an agreed standby plan for a United Nations peace force that could be activated on short notice. … Steps have been taken for such a study to be undertaken in the Secretariat. It is the results of that study which we now await.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government intend to put forward at the United Nations with a view to amending the Charter in the light of the changes which have taken place in international and world conditions since the Charter was first agreed to.

The present position with regard to Charter Review is that the General Assembly of the United Nations last October confirmed a decision of the Charter Review Committee that it should remain in being and report to the General Assembly not later than its 14th Session, that is next year. The decision of the Charter Review Committee which consists of all members of the United Nations was unanimous except for the Soviet bloc, which abstained. The Soviet position was that any change in the Charter could only be for the worse. That remains the Soviet position. Her Majesty's Government would like to see the Charter amended in a number of respects, but I think we have to face the fact that, as the Soviet Government have a veto on any changes, we are wise to postpone the Conference until there is some sign of a change in the Soviet attitude.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his noble Friend the Earl of Home said in another place on 14th May that the Government would like to see a review of the United Nations Charter—the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself repeated that this afternoon—and that that would lead to better international justice? What do the Government intend to do now to press for a review of the Charter?

We are taking the wise course in waiting for a time because the Soviet Union, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has a veto on any changes. The Soviet Union said at the meetings of the Review Committee last year that she had every intention of exercising that veto and would not agree to any changes. We have to see whether we can arrive at a situation where the Soviet Union is likely to depart from that attitude.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in preparing for a conference of those nations interested in fishing in the North Atlantic, Arctic and North Sea areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the confusion created by several nations taking unilateral action to change the three-mile limit for fishing purposes, in total disregard of the long-established rights of the fishing nations; and if he will make a further attempt to seek to bring about agreement by international machinery more comprehensive than a regional conference rather than wait until a trawler is arrested and the skipper prosecuted by one of these nations.

No progress has been made in preparing for a regional conference. I am aware of the confusion caused by unilateral actions to extend exclusive fishing zones; Her Majesty's Government strongly disapprove of such actions. The recent Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted a Resolution which requested the United Nations General Assembly to study, at this year's Session, the advisability of convening a second international conference. If this were agreed, Her Majesty's Government would make every effort to obtain international agreement on the breadth of the territorial seas and on limits for fishing purposes.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the recent action of the Icelandic Government? Will he agree that the only alternative is a conference, and would it not be better to pursue the idea of a regional conference rather than one embracing the whole of the United Nations?

We have made it absolutely clear that we will not accept unilateral declarations in this matter and that any changes must be arrived at by negotiation. There are three ways of negotiation, an international conference covering all the countries of the world, a regional conference, or bi-lateral negotiations. I am very anxious to arrive at a solution by any of those three methods.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that only last week the Icelandic Government issued regulations widening the limit to 12 miles? Does that apply to 12 miles in the air as well as on the sea? What instructions is he giving to our trawlers—or does he intend to wait until a trawler is arrested and its gear confiscated before something definite is done?

The regulations apply to fishing. Her Majesty's Government made their attitude perfectly clear in their declaration published some time ago when they first received intimation of the Icelandic intention. The regulations do not come into force until September and our hope is that in the intervening time we shall arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement by negotiation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the recent note of Her Majesty's Government delivered to the Polish Government rejecting the Rapacki Plan in its present form, whether it is now their policy not to have further discussions with the Polish Government on the plan prior to a meeting of the proposed Summit Conference.

The Note to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers makes it clear that Her Majesty's Government do not regard the Polish Government's proposals as offering a solution to the wider issues which they raise. Now that we are engaged in preparatory talks with the Soviet Government which we still hope may lead to a Summit Conference, Her Majesty's Government do not contemplate a separate negotiation with the Polish Government.

In view of the Foreign Secretary's statement in a reply two or three weeks ago that Her Majesty's Government were willing to have discussions with the Polish Government either at a Summit Conference or in some other way, and in view of the delay in arranging the Summit Conference, is there not a good deal to be said for having further discussions with the Polish Government preparatory to the wider discussions which will obviously have to take place on this matter at the Summit Conference.

I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to refresh his memory of the terms of our reply to the Polish Government in dealing with the Rapacki Plan. At present, I am certain that we are right not to envisage a separate negotiation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the situation in the Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will take the initiative in seeking to conclude an agreement between the permanent members of the Security Council interested in the Middle East, to wit, France, the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, on applying to the Lebanon the obligations of the Charter prohibiting interference in the internal affairs of members of the United Nations;

(2) what communications have passed between the United Kingdom and the United States Governments, in pursuance of their joint membership of the military and subversion committees of the Bagdad Pact, relating to military action in the Lebanon in response to President Chamoun's request for help;

(3) what advice has been received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld, on the question of whether or not the situation in the Lebanon is to be regarded as the internal affair of that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in regard to the Lebanon in view of the report by Mr. Hammarskjöld to the Security Council on his visit to the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation with regard to the Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what report he has received on the Lebanon situation from the Secretary-General of the United Nations; and what steps Her Majesty's Government will take, in view of such report, to relax tension in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations has now published a report on the implementation of the United Nations Resolution debated on 11th June. It was issued on 28th June. The text will shortly be available in the Library and, in the meanwhile, I have arranged that extracts from it should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

A group of over ninety United Nations Observers is now deployed in the Lebanon. It is still too early to say whether this is adequate to fulfil the functions which were assigned to it by the Security Council Resolution. The Group is preparing a first report, which may be expected soon.

I do not consider that the initiative suggested by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) would help in view of the Resolution passed by the Security Council, for which the United States, France and the United Kingdom voted and upon which the Soviet Union abstained.

We have had no communications with the United States Government pursuant to our joint membership of the Military and Counter-Subversion Committees of the Bagdad Pact, which have not discussed the matter.

It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to do all within their power to see that the Security Council Resolution of 11th June is carried out. I would remind the House of the terms of the operative paragraph of that Resolution, which reads: The Security Council … decides to despatch an observation Group to proceed to the borders of the Lebanon to ensure that there is no illegal infiltration of personnel or supply of arms or other material across the Lebanese borders.

Does the statement made by Mr. Dulles yesterday, that military intervention in the Lebanon was a policy of last resort, represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Are Her Majesty's Government in any way pledged to embark upon military intervention in the Lebanon even as a last resort?

I have not seen the actual words of what Mr. Dulles said. I heard something of it on the radio this morning and I heard nothing with which I disagree. I have pointed out before that Her Majesty's Government would not act contrary to the Charter or established rules of international law. I would not disagree with what I heard of what Mr. Dulles said. We have received no request for military intervention from the Lebanon.

Can the Foreign Secretary make that a little more precise? Can he assure the House that, apart from our general obligation under the Charter or under international law, we have not given any private undertaking which would fetter our complete discretion if we were to receive a request for intervention? Would we be quite free to take our decision then?

We would certainly have to judge any request when it came, but it is not advisable to speculate about hypothetical circumstances.

Is it not true that the speculation is supported because of observations made elsewhere about military intervention being conceived of as an act of last resort? Would it not be better to back up the United Nations in this matter, having got a very good Resolution from the Security Council, rather than talk about alternative methods if that failed?

I agree. All the talk about alternative methods has not come from me. It has arisen from the Question asked. I have said again and again that I believe that we have to give full support to the Resolution of the Security Council and ensure that the group is able to do the job given to it.

In view of the very considerable anxiety which has been caused by the massing of troops in Cyprus beyond the needs of security there and the indefinite reply which has been given from the Front Bench with reference to the statement by Mr. Dulles yesterday, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a categorical statement that Her Majesty's Government will not act in the Lebanon without the endorsement of the United Nations?

I have dealt with that question again and again. I think I have made our position absolutely clear. I will not speculate about hypothetical circumstances, but I will give a pledge that we will not act contrary to the Charter or the established rules of international law.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of Press reports that there is danger to British subjects in the Lebanon? Will he give an assurance that whatever measures are necessary will be taken to defend the lives and property of these subjects?

The question of the safety of British subjects is a matter that we have constantly and anxiously under attention.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen reports in The Times and other newspapers that all the Western residents in the Lebanon are most anxious that there should be no intervention because they do not desire to share the fate of the British in Egypt eighteen months ago?

I have read a great many speculations and reports, many of them having very little foundation.

In view of the Foreign Secretary's repeated assurance that the Government will take no action contrary to the Charter, will he give a definite assurance that there will be no military intervention in the Lebanon contrary to the advice of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which was to the effect that this is an internal affair of the Lebanon?

We had all this last week. I said that the formula which I adopted was that which I believed any Government would adopt—I have said it again today—that we will not act contrary to the Charter or the established rules of inernational law.

Why will not the Foreign Secretary say that Her Majesty's Government will deal with the matter only under the authority of the United Nations? Is it not clear that any intervention, or threat of intervention, only worsens the situation in the Middle East? Why cannot he add to the assurance about the principles of the Charter that Her Majesty's Government will deal with the matter exclusively under the authority of the United Nations?

Because there are certain other hypotheses and I do not think it profitable to speculate about them.

Extract from the Secretary-General's second report of 28th June on the implementation of the Security Council Resolution of 11th June .

As of 26th June, ninety-four officers from eleven countries were serving as military observers in the Lebanon. They have established a regular patrolling system of areas accessible and, since the implementation report of 16th June, have advanced further into areas outside Government control. Areas being regularly patrolled by the observer teams are the following: Around Tripoli and south of that city. The coastal road from Naquora to Demour, and roads branching off toward the interior; The Marjayoun area; The Chtaura area and north-east beyond Baalbec; The area north and east of Beirut and south of the city, except in the vicinity of Beit el Dine.

Observer out-stations have been established in the following areas: Tripoli (with a sub-station at the Cedars), Chtaura, Zahle, Marjayoun, Saida, and at Saghbine south-east of Beirut. From these out-stations, patrol activities are extended into the surrounding countryside. Out-stations in several other places are now being established or are under consideration.

In visiting areas outside Government control, the observers have met local leaders and have discussed with them freedom of movement in the Bekaa area north of Baalbec, the Chouf area south of Beit el Dine, and the area north of Tripoli. It was reported from the headquarters of the group on 25th June that for the time being further efforts at moving deeper into such areas were deferred at the following main points: The area north and north-east of Tripoli (where firing is in close vicinity and the roads are mined), The Beit el Dine area, and The North Bekaa area.

The basic items of equipment for the observer teams are transport and communications, and arrangements have worked well for the delivery of jeeps and supporting transport at a rate compatible with the arrival in the area of the military observers. Thus, as of 26th June, there were seventy-four vehicles to ninety-four observers. A fully operating radio communication system has been installed for contact between the United Nations Observation Group in the Lebanon (UNOGIL) Headquarters, observer outstations and jeeps circulating within the areas assigned for observation.

At the request of the Group, United Nations Headquarters has obtained two small helicopters. The helicopters arrived in Beirut on 23rd June and, with Norwegian pilots, are now in operation, Four light observation planes have also been requested and will be on hand soon, These, as the helicopters, will be used solely for aerial observation in pursuance of the group's task under the Security Council resolution. The Governments of neighbouring countries have been notified by the Secretary General of these observation flights over Lebanese territory in the proximity of the borders.

Arrangements have been made by the group for receiving from the Ministry in charge of relations between the Government of Lebanon and the group, written communications on cases which the Lebanese Government desires to bring to the attention of the group. The group in turn submits these to independent study through its own means and in the light of supporting evidence provided. The group has received information concerning prisoners, said to be Syrians, taken by the Lebanese authorities. Such prisoners, when made available to the group, are being interrogated by the executive member of the group, Major General Bull, with the assistance of qualified military observers, concerning matters covered by the Security Council resolution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the appointment of a British Minister in the Yemen has received further consideration.

The 1951 Exchange of Notes between Her Majesty's Government and the Yemeni Government provided for the establishment of normal diplomatic representation between the two countries, but the Yemeni Government never agreed to accept a British Minister in Taiz and Her Majesty's Government have been represented there by a Chargé d'Affaires. Since the expulsion of our Chargé d'Affaires in February, his assistant has been in charge of the Legation. I have nominated a new Chargé d'Affaires and in June asked the Yemeni Government for a visa. I am now waiting for a reply from them.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the nominated Chargé d'Affaires is, in fact, the acting Chargé d'Affaires there?

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when the Chargé d'Affaires is likely to take over his duties.

It depends on the visa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information he has concerning commerce in slaves in the Middle East; and what action the Royal Navy is taking in intercepting this.

Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that there has been any increase in the scope of the slave trade in the Middle East. As the hon. Member is aware, this trade has been abolished either by treaty or by law in all Middle Eastern territories for whose international relations Her Majesty's Government are responsible. With regard to action by the Royal Navy, Her Majesty's Ships passing through the Red Sea or stationed in the Persian Gulf have general instructions to search craft suspected of carrying slaves but there have been no incidents connected with slave trading for a number of years.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is very strong suspicion that some kind of slave raiding or slave trading still takes place? Has he had any evidence of this in recent months?

I should like to have a specific Question on that subject. My impression is that we have no definite evidence. There is suspicion, but we have no definite evidence.

As I understand that no permanent supervisory machinery was set up under the recent Convention, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that some machinery exists for giving the information, or is he relying upon chance to bring it to his notice?

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we did not get our way with enforcement measures under the international convention. I admit that I do not think the machinery is satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made for the establishment by the International Atomic Energy Agency of the system of permanent inspection of nuclear plants to prevent the use of fissile material for military purposes, as provided in Article 12 of the Statute.

It is for the Agency's Secretariat in the first instance to make proposals on the methods to be used in implementing the safeguard provisions in the Agency's Statute, but Her Majesty's Government will be glad to make available to them the fruits of our own technical studies on this subject.

Since we and other nations are now supplying nuclear reactors to Italy and many other nations, will not the whole purpose of the Statute of the Agency be frustrated unless action is taken very soon? As a member of the Agency, cannot Her Majesty's Government put forward practical proposals?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that the safeguard provisions in the Agency Statute were a compromise between those of the United Kingdom and the United States, who wanted strict safeguards, and those of the Soviet Union and India, who opposed strict safeguards. In the light of the compromise which has resulted in the Statute, I think we are wise to wait some time for the Agency itself to take the initiative.

In view of the great urgency of this matter, is it not desirable that Her Majesty's Government should at least ensure that the Agency is taking some action and that work is going on?

Certainly, Sir; but, in order not to give a false impression so far as the Agency is concerned, I would point out that it will be some considerable time before any reactor can come into operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent Note delivered by the Soviet Government regarding the proposed Conference of Experts to be held in Geneva, he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the refusal of the Russian Government to attend the proposed conference of technical experts to discuss the possibilities of nuclear disarmament and control machinery, whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in regard to the future of the conference.

I am glad to say that the Conference opened in Geneva yesterday as planned.

Is it the view of the Government that if agreement were obtained at the Conference of Experts it would make a substantial contribution to the eventual cessation of all nuclear tests?

I agree that it would make a substantial contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what answer has been received to his protest against the landing on Shetland by Russian seamen in pursuit of a refugee.

I have not yet received a reply to the protest.

If it proves that the facts are as stated, was not this an intolerable intrusion of a type which the Russians would be the first deeply to resent if it happened to them? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues look into the whole situation of the Russian fishing fleet in our waters? We are not averse to having the Russian fishing fleet off the Shetlands, where it spends a large part of the year, but would it not be as well to regularise its position and encourage it to use Shetland ports if it is to be there at all?

In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am inclined to agree with him. I think it better to await the reply to the protest. In regard to the second part, I will certainly give that further consideration.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his negotiations try to persuade the Russians to allow our fishing fleet to go as near the Russian coast as they come to ours?

There is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I think we are getting a little away from the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has about the expulsion by the Czechoslovak authorities of the Second Secretary at Her Majesty's Embassy in Prague; and if he will make a statement.

On 3rd April, Mr. Bedford attempted to smuggle a Czechoslovak national, Mr. Machacek, out of Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak authorities declared Mr. Bedford persona non grata on 4th April. The circumstances surrounding the discovery of Mr. Machacek in the boot of Mr. Bedford's car at the Czechoslovak frontier make it clear that the whole affair was a prepared trap. The subsequent charges of espionage only recently made against Mr. Bedford are unfounded.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction in this country to those who are interested in British-Czechoslovak relations? Will he give the strongest repudiation to the suggestions that Mr. Bedford received money for his attempted smuggling feat and that he was engaged in espionage activities?

I think I have already covered the point about espionage. We have no evidence at all that Mr. Bedford received money.

If any effort is to be made on behalf of people wishing to escape in the boots of cars, might they not consult M. Soustelle?

asked the Minister of Labour what conclusions Her Majesty's Government have reached on the recommendations of the Report on Unemployment, prepared for the International Labour Office, that Governments should proceed with advanced planning to forestall unemployment, including a programme for the production and export of large quantities of capital equipment and an expansion of international monetary reserves.

The International Labour Office Report on the World Employment Situation has not yet been referred to Governments for their consideration.

While it is clear that European nations are able to withstand the effect of a recession in America more effectively than in the inter-war years, is it not the case that the danger has not passed? Will the Minister look at these recommendations when they are before the Government, especially those which urge greater investment at home and, particularly, in Colonial Territories?

Yes, we will certainly study them but, as my answer made clear, they have not yet been referred to Governments.

While it is rather late in the day to talk about advanced planning in connection with Lancashire's unemployment problem, may I ask the Minister whether he will do what he can to encourage his Cabinet colleagues to bring about diversification of industry in Lancashire in view of the fact that Lancashire's current problems arise out of the single fact of exporting capital goods to other parts of the world?

asked the Minister of Labour (1) what was the percentage of unemployment in Dundee at the most recent convenient date in June; and what was the ratio of unemployed to unfilled vacancies; and

(2) if he will give an analysis of the unemployment figures in Dundee at the most convenient recent date in June, according to the lengths of time insured workers have been unemployed.

For the Dundee and Broughty Ferry areas combined the percentage of unemployment at 16th June was 6.5. At that date there were about five unfilled notified vacancies in this area for every 100 persons registered as wholly unemployed.

I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an analysis of the number of unemployed at 16th June according to duration of unemployment.

Is the Minister aware that the unemployment figures are continuing to go up and that the number of unfilled vacancies continues to go down? Has his Department made any estimate of when this trend is likely to cease?

No. The trend is a very worrying one indeed. There has, I think, been a small drop in the figure of wholly unemployed in Dundee, but that it more than counterbalanced by the serious increase in the number of temporarily stopped. It is one of the most serious of the individual problems. We shall do everything we can to help Dundee.

The following is the analysis: NUMBER OF WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTER OF THE DUNDEE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AT 16TH JUNE, 1958 Duration of Unemployment Males Females Total Up to 2 weeks 371 186 557 Over 2 and up to 8 weeks 619 355 974 Over 8 and up to 13 weeks 303 234 537 Over 13 and up to 26 weeks 518 362 880 Over 26 and up to 39 weeks 271 158 429 Over 39 and up to 52 weeks 139 80 219 Over 52 weeks 410 107 517 TOTAL 2,631 1,482 4,113

Note .—The Table above excludes persons registered as temporarily stopped. The number in that category in Dundee at 16th June was 1,638.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were registered at employment exchanges in Dundee as being jute workers and building trade workers, respectively, at the most recent convenient date in June; and what percentages of these were unemployed.

At 16th June, 2,445 workers in the jute industry and 225 in the building industry were registered as unemployed in Dundee and Broughty Ferry. The respective percentages were 15.6 and 4.6.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to certain exchanges during the debate on the cotton industry in which the Government made it perfectly clear that they regarded the present State trading in jute as a temporary measure which the President of the Board of Trade disliked intensely? Does he not agree that the Government ought to give an assurance to Dundee that there will be no further interference with this State trading in jute, which protects employment in Dundee, at least until alternative jobs have been provided?

I will certainly give an assurance that there would be no major change without discussions. If the hon. Member wishes to press the matter further than that, perhaps he will put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade.

Is the figure of 15.6 per cent. a figure for jute workers employed in Dundee or a figure for jute workers employed in the jute industry, which involves the district outside Dundee?

The figure is for the jute industry.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) approximately how many married women who go out to work are not covered for unemployment insurance; how many of these have lost their jobs this year; and whether he will include such persons in the official unemployment figures;

(2) if he will estimate the approximate number of married women who have become unemployed in Lancashire cotton mills in the last three years but who are not included in the number of unemployed because they are not covered by unemployment insurance.

It is estimated that about two-and-a-quarter million married women who go out to work are not covered by unemployment insurance. It is not possible to say how many of them have lost their jobs. They are included in the monthly statistics of unemployment if they register at the employment exchanges for other work.

Does the Minister agree that with 440,000 registered unemployed, plus all these married women unemployed, not to mention the hundreds of thousands on short time, we now have easily the highest figure of unemployed since 1939? Are we again to have eleven men for ten jobs, as is so cold-bloodedly advocated in certain quarters as a means to undermine the trade unions?

That is absolute nonsense, and I am sure that the hon. Member knows it. I think that he also makes the mistake of assuming that the married women are not included in the unemployment figures if they are not eligible for unemployment benefit. That is not so. The unemployment figures include all those who are applicants for work, whether or not they are entitled to benefit.

asked the Minister of Labour what changes Her Majesty's Government propose in the method of operating Whitley Councils in industries in which the Government is the employer.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 27th November last.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present position is quite impossible? The trade unions take their case to the Whitley Council and, under the present method used by the Government, if there is an agreement there is no guarantee that it will be carried out. If they fail to agree upon that, the Government say that in fact there is not a failure to agree between the parties and will not allow the unions to go to arbitration. Is the Minister aware of the great delays which the unions in the National Health Service have had? Is he aware that their case has only just gone to the Industrial Court? It is no good giving to the Industrial Court powers of infallibility and then refusing to allow the employees to use it.

I think perhaps the hon. Member is a little confused in his supplementary question. I do not think the same considerations can in any way apply to Industrial Court awards as apply to agreements on Whitley Councils. Answering the question about the National Health Service Whitley Council, the Government are not the direct employers in that case, but the decision, which I am sure is right, to have a Ministerial veto, if it may be so described, was taken by the hon. Gentleman's own party.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not confused on the issue. It is a fact, is it not, that the Government having refused to agree to the official side's agreement with the trade unions, those unions could not have a failure to agree registered and could not use arbitration? Subsequently months and months have elapsed and a new application has been made which now has to be taken to the Industrial Court. I am asking quite seriously that the right hon. Gentleman should make it possible either for agreements at the Whitley Councils to be ratified or for failure to agree to be registered and for the trade unions to have the right to go straight to arbitration.

I understand that point. I do not think it follows that because there was one disagreement, I admit very difficult and serious, the system is necessarily wrong. If one were to insist on the official side always having its way it would mean a very considerable re-organisation of the membership of the official side of the Whitley Council, and I do not think that that would necessarily be for the benefit of smooth working. That is why I have no proposals for altering it.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of man-days lost as a result of the recent unofficial strike at the London docks.

The number of working days lost in the recent stoppage in the London and Tilbury docks is estimated at about 330,000.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this was one of the most serious dock strikes since the introduction of the Dock Labour Scheme?

Yes. It had a very serious effect. It is not always easy to compare strikes, but it was probably as serious a strike as we have had for about ten years.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to avoid a repetition of the recent unofficial London dock strike.

Unofficial strikes are unquestionably a most serious problem, and one that from their nature are difficult to resolve by normal methods. Few if any of the suggestions sometimes put forward for lessening the risk of strikes have much relevance to unofficial stoppages where the main responsibility for avoiding such stoppages rests on the trade unions concerned.

I have appointed a Committee of Investigation to examine the causes and circumstances of the meat transport dispute, itself an unofficial strike in which the unofficial London dock strike had its origin.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that these irresponsible unofficial dock strikes, which are so damaging to the country's economy, are symptomatic of a deep malaise in the industry and call for urgent discussions between representatives of the employers and of the trade unions with a view to amending the Dock Labour Scheme?

No, I was more sympathetic with the beginning of my hon. Friend's supplementary question than with the end. This was a very serious strike indeed, and serious unofficial strikes are, of course, a curse to industry and disruptive of the authority of the unions. There had, however, been a considerable period of peace in dockland before this strike took place. Although there are aspects of the Dock Labour Scheme which I am discussing and in due course will bring to the attention of the House, I would not suggest a radical amendment.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is adequate machinery within the present scheme for consultation between the employers and the trade union? Would he not agree also that the trade union officials in all these cases have worked with him and through their other officials to bring peace to the industry and are themselves very much against unofficial strikes?

Yes, I would agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said; but it is also true that all the efforts that the union made in this long dispute in dockland failed, and as a result we have had these particular difficulties.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the settlement of the bus strike.

The strike was ended following an agreement between the London Transport Executive and the Transport and General Workers' Union, the terms of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In view of the statements which colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman have made outside this House about bus fares, would the Minister inform the House whether either he or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will make a further statement on the settlement of the strike?

I am not sure that that point arises directly out of the Question, but the position as to fares has been made clear with the exception of what are called scattered sub-standard fares, about which there has been an announcement in the House. There is no intention of trying to recover the amount by a general increase in fares.

Following are the terms of the agreement:

1. Central Road Services drivers and conductors to receive an increase of 8s. 6d. per week with effect from the date of resumption of work.

2. Green Line single-deck coach drivers to receive an agreed increase with effect from the date of resumption of work.

3. A joint review of the wages of the excluded staffs to be carried out on the merits of the case. This review to start on the day before the resumption of work and to be completed not later than 1st July. Any increase agreed as a result of this review to be payable on and from 2nd July.

In an endeavour to remove any misunderstandings concerning the intentions of the review and to assist in securing an agreed and orderly resumption of duty, the London Transport Executive and the union agree that the intention of the review will be to provide an upward trend in wage levels.

In so far as the maintenance staffs are concerned, any increase arising from the review will not be less than an adjustment in wages which may be granted to London Transport Executive works staff and Railway workshops staff arising from the present negotiations. This is in line with normal practice.

In so far as the Country Services staff are concerned, it is not the intention that any decision arising from the review shall leave the wages of such staff in an unfavourable position compared with other staffs inside the London Transport Executive Road Services or comparable grades elsewhere.

4. Neither staff whose labour has been withdrawn nor staff who have reported for duty during the period of withdrawal of labour shall be prejudiced either by the Executive or by the union by their actions during this period. The Executive and the union to undertake to use their best endeavours to ensure that this agreement is observed in the spirit as well as in the letter.

5. It is agreed that the schedules posted for operation on 30th April, 14th May and 25th June will continue to remain as the basis of operation on resumption of work. Having regard, however, to the present financial position of London Transport and to meet the needs of the public and the staff, London Transport Executive and Transport and General Workers' Union agree to jointly examine the whole operation of the bus services, with a view to the necessary adjustments being made to provide a service commensurate with public demand.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons formerly employed by British Railways in Taunton and at the Pool Wall, Taunton, shirt factory of Messrs. McIntyre Hogg and Marsh and Company, Limited, have sought new employment through the local offices of his Department; for how many persons new employment has been found; what prospects exist of finding further employment; and if he will make a statement.

Thirty-six workers discharged by British Railways at Taunton at the end of May have registered for employment at my local offices. Of these, 32 have obtained other work and four men are still unemployed; 133 workers from McIntyre Hogg and Marsh have registered for employment, but of these only 83 have so far been discharged; 45 are known to have obtained other employment and 13 women, 10 of whom are available for part-time work only, are registered as unemployed. The prospects of finding other employment for the remaining workers are reasonably good, particularly if the women are prepared to consider work outside their usual trade.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that everybody concerned is most grateful for the efficiency of his local officers, but would he not agree that there is a certain disbalance in employment in Taunton which may possibly be rectified by the introduction of a small amount of selected industry?

Taunton is reasonably well off in comparison with many of the other serious problems that we have. It is true that within the limits of that situation there are certain problems in Taunton, and if we can help we will.

Although Taunton may be relatively well placed, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of anxiety among railway workers throughout the Western Region of British Railways, not least of all in my own constituency, about the prospects? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep a close watch on the situation and keep in touch with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport?

Is it not the case that there is no intention at this stage of introducing any new industries into Taunton to meet the unemployment situation there?

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the growing unemployment within the Wellingborough Parliamentary Division; and what action he proposes to take in regard to the provision of facilities for registration and payment of benefits for unemployed persons living in Raunds, Irthlingborough and adjoining villages who now have to travel to Rushden because of the closure of local offices which previously existed at Raunds and Irthlingborough.

The numbers unemployed in the Raunds and Irthlingborough areas are greater by 11 and six, respectively, than those on the basis of which it was decided to close these offices. The present numbers of unemployed are not large enough to justify their reopening.

Even if the unemployment figures are not large in comparison with other areas, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that when a person has to pay 2s. or 2s. 4d. in bus fares to register for unemployment and to collect benefit, this is a considerable sum to be deducted from the benefit? Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department be prepared to meet the cost?

No, I could not undertake to meet the cost. If that were done we would have to do it everywhere else. Of course, distance from an office is recognised in the conditions. That is to say, persons who live between four and six miles from the office are asked to register only once a week, and those who live over six miles away are dealt with by post. I will watch the situation, but these figures represent a very small increase indeed on the ones on which I took my decision.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is satisfied that the City of Coventry Council carry out its duties under Section 34 of the Factories Act, 1937, in a satisfactory manner; whether the City Council in the course of issuing upwards of 400 fire escape certificates has issued certificates protecting the workers in the former shadow factories; for how many years his Department has accepted such certificates as valid; and at what date and for what reason it has now declared them invalid;

(2) approximately how many people protected by the Factories Acts are employed within the City of Coventry in the former shadow factories; at what date since the passing of the Factories Act, 1937, his Department informed the City Council that the responsibility for surveying the fire exits and issuing the statutory certificates lay not with it but with Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories; and how many certificates, protecting how many workers, Her Majesty's Inspectors have in fact issued;

(3) how many Inspectors of Factories have been taken off other duties in order to undertake the detailed surveys formerly carried out by the City of Coventry Council since his Department informed the City Council that fire escape certificates issued by them for the former shadow factories, and accepted by his Department for many years, were invalid.

I am fully satisfied with the work of the Coventry City Council in issuing fire escape certificates. The Council has issued certificates for former shadow factories. These were accepted as valid until September, 1956, when on legal advice the City Council was informed that these shadow factories were Crown factories and that the Factory Inspectorate was accordingly responsible for issuing certificates because of the provisions of Section 150 of the Factories Act, 1937. The factories concerned employ about 10,000. Three certificates have been issued by the Inspectorate for factories employing 450. Two factories employing 5,000 have been surveyed by the Inspectorate and certificates are being prepared. One factory undergoing structural alterations, and another which has just been re-built, which together employ over 3,000, will be surveyed by the Inspectorate at an appropriate time. Three factories employing small numbers will be surveyed as soon as possible. No inspectors have been taken off other duties to do this work.

While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether it is not the case that the Coventry shadow factories are, as experience has shown, highly vulnerable to fire? Is it not the case that thanks to the operations of management and workers and the successful operation of the certificate system by the experienced inspectors of the Coventry City Council, there has not been a single fatality in a factory fire in Coventry within memory?

Is it not now the fact that, unfortunately, despite the wording of the Act, the lack of inspectors available to his Department may reduce the efficiency of the formerly effective inspection of those factories? In those circumstances, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider some form of amendment in order to restore factory fire inspection to the experienced staff of the Coventry City Council?

I cannot promise an amendment. I should have to amend the 1937 Act to do so. The Coventry standard is very high indeed, and I pay tribute to that. It is purely because of this legal point which came to light as a result of the drive and initiative after the Keighley fire fatality that this matter was discovered. I hope to push on as quickly as possible, and I also hope to see that the standard set by the Coventry City Council is fully maintained by the inspector.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that at the time of the Keighley fire we suggested that greater co-operation between the fire officers of the local authorities and the factory department would yield good results. Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a closer liaison between the two bodies now?

Yes, I think there is. In this case, for example, there have been consultations between the City Council and the Inspectorate, and we are anxious to maintain the high standard which already exists.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of cotton textile operatives on employers' books compared with June, 1953.

The available figures include office, etc., staffs as well as operatives. The estimated total number of employees in employment in the cotton industry in Great Britain at the end of April, 1958, was about 238,000 compared with 284,000 at the end of June, 1953.

asked the Minister of Labour what are the percentages of male and female cotton textile operatives wholly unemployed and the percentage of temporarily stopped workers, including in both cases married women who are not eligible for unemployment benefit.

The numbers of wholly unemployed males and females in the cotton industry in Great Britain at 12th May, 1958, represented 2 per cent. and 1.2 per cent., respectively, of the estimated total numbers of male and female employees in the industry. The corresponding proportions temporarily stopped were 4.5 per cent. for males and 6.5 per cent. for females. Married women who are not eligible for unemployment benefit are included in the figure if they register at employment exchanges for work. It is not possible to take account of those who do not register at employment exchanges when they lose their employment.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him if he could tell me whether temporarily stopped workers are really those who have extended holidays?

No, Sir. The definition of temporarily stopped goes much wider than that, but the increase in the temporarily stopped in Lancashire is certainly one of the worrying aspects of the situation.

asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of unemployed in the Southampton district for the latest available date, and for the same date in 1957, 1956 and 1955.

Two thousand, seven hundred and eighty-two at 16th June, 1958, compared with 1,461 in June, 1957, 1,303 in June, 1956, and 1,354 in June, 1955.

Is the Minister aware that these figures reveal that serious unemployment has broken out at Harland and Wolff's and Thorneycroft's in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry? Will he give some attention to the question of enabling firms of this kind to get ship repairing contracts, and will he especially look into the problem of the ship repairing work going away from this country to Europe?

Yes; these figures are steeper at Southampton than for most other ports in the country, and are getting on for double the figures of last year and the previous year. I should like to consider with some of my colleagues in the Government what the hon. Member has said in his supplementary question.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that much of the ship repairing work is being lost because German firms do the job much cheaper than firms in this country? What stops can any Government take to stop Germans doing their work cheaper and, therefore, obtaining the work?

asked the Minister of Labour how many retraining schemes for unemployed persons are available through his Department; how many such persons are being retrained; and for which industries.

On 10th March, 1958, there were 83 trades in which persons were being trained under the Ministry's Vocational Training Scheme. Training in a number of those trades is confined to the disabled. The number of trainees was 3,258. It is not possible to say how many of these were receiving retraining, but it is estimated that about 80 per cent. were unemployed before entering training.

While we are very glad to hear these figures, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would not agree that the functions of his Ministry must now turn more and more to the problem of retraining people who are unemployed? We are now in July, and we have very high unemployment figures, and surely all the seasonal factors have now disappeared? Therefore, does it not come down to the fact that we must seriously consider the retraining of people who are unemployed?

I think that in the main it has always been a point that retraining as such should be done in industry, and that follows logically from both the 1944 and 1948 Acts. I think that the services, useful though they are, should always be regarded as a supplement to the work which industry does itself.

asked the Minister of Labour to what extent there is co-operation between his Department, employers and trade unions in order to widen the scope for the retraining of workers whose jobs are disappearing as a result of technical changes.

There have been no recent discussions between the Ministry and employers' organisations and trade unions with a view to widening the range of trades in which training facilities are available under the Vocational Training Scheme. The number of training places available and the range of trades are considered adequate to meet current requirements, but these arrangements are kept under review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is now essential to get the full co-operation of employers and trade unions in an effort to absorb people who are now losing their jobs through technical change, and will continue to do so in ever-increasing numbers? Is he aware that the Ministry could do a very good job by bringing employers and trade unions into consultation before really heavy unemployment comes about?

I have some sympathy with that, but I claim that we have that co-operation from both employers and the trade unions on this matter, which has been discussed on more than one occasion by my N.J.A.C., and I think they agree with the approach which I have outlined in my Answer.

asked the Minister of Labour what consideration is being given to the establishment of a code of conduct controlling the relations between trade unions and individual wage earners, whether union members or not, with particular reference to legislation which would protect the individual against discrimination or victimisation.

I am aware that there is public concern, which of course I share, both within and outside the trade union movement, at the instances of victimisation and discrimination which occur from time to time. But I doubt whether new legislation or a code of conduct would achieve the object, which no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, of ensuring harmony in industry and between individuals.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the fact that a number of responsible and respected trade union leaders have recently spoken up strongly against these malpractices, they do unhappily still exist? Has not the time come when we should ask ourselves whether moral condemnation is enough or whether it ought to be backed up by some legal sanction?

Meaning what?

I do not see how we can make men wiser or behave better towards their fellow men by law. Of course, this is a very serious problem indeed. I am merely saying that I do not think that legislation is the answer to it. We can impose such a code, but I do not see how we can enforce such a code, especially against unofficial action.

asked the Minister of Labour how the number of men presently employed in rabbit destruction compares with the figure four years ago, giving separate figures for Scotland.

I regret that this information is not available.

Could my right hon. Friend not make some attempt to obtain that information so that it may be seen whether there is a sufficient pool of trappers available for any increase of rabbits which may take place?

I am told that the difficulty is that one cannot distinguish rabbit trappers in the statistics from other workers in agriculture. It is probably true, however, that there has been a considerable decrease over the last few years in the number employed.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) what is the number of registered unemployed for the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw at the latest convenient date; and at the comparable date in 1957; and

(2) how many of the registered unemployed in the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw are from the steel-making industry.

Two thousand, four hundred and thirty-nine at 16th June, 1958, compared with 1,108 at 17th June, 1957. The former number includes 552 in the steel making industry.

Does the Minister appreciate that this must represent more than 7 per cent. unemployment among people living in the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw, at the heart of industrial Scotland, and is he aware that a depression in Motherwell indicates very gloomy prospects indeed for Scotland as a whole, since all Scotland depends upon Motherwell and what it produces? Will he take special steps?

I do not think that it is possible to calculate a separate figure for Motherwell and Wishaw because they are part of a larger travel-to-work area, but I do not disagree that the figure in North Lanarkshire is becoming very serious and is causing considerable concern.

asked the Minister of Labour what decision has been reached with regard to the performance of National Service by men born during the last quarter of 1939.

The position is not yet sufficiently clear for me to add anything to what was said about these men in the White Paper on Call-up of Men to the Forces.

While appreciating the difficulty of taking a decision in this matter, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty of young men now approaching 19 years of age without any knowledge whatever of what the future has for them in this respect? When does he expect that the situation will be clear enough for him to make some declaration which will help them and their parents to draw up some programme?

I understand that very well. The position is that men born in the third quarter of 1939 are to be called up and the 1940 class have been told that they will not be called up. The last quarter of 1939, therefore, is our final reserve. Although I should like to make a pronouncement as soon as I can, it is one which I am not in a position to make at present.

Does the difficulty arise over the uncertainty about recruiting? Is that the main difficulty?

No, Sir. The main difficulty is that of estimating the needs of the Services and also the number which will be available to meet those needs.

asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the shortage of teachers, he will end the call-up of teachers for National Service.

No, Sir. The existing arrangements for the deferment of teachers are the result of a careful review last year with the various interests concerned, and I do not contemplate any further extension at this time.

Would not the Minister agree that British influence on world affairs depends not only on the strength of our defences but on the strength of our economy? Is he not aware that there are many objections to the many anomalies in the present deferment scheme? Will he have these examined and not wait until 1959 to ensure at least that in the field of science and mathematics teachers those who teach these subjects will not be taken for National Service?

I did not mean to imply, in answer to an earlier Question, that I would wait until 1959. It will be examined much sooner than that. I was talking about those who may be called up in 1959, and the arrangements for graduates for this year are, at the moment, far advanced. I do not feel that I can take the very large step which the hon. Lady suggests. We have made many improvements in the question of the call-up of those with graduate facilities, and I do not think that at the moment we can go further.

In view of the Government's perfectly correct policy of exempting miners and other workers of whom there is a shortage, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not consider that there is a shortage of teachers, or does not he consider their work as important as that of other workers who are exempt?

No, of course not, but there are obvious differences between the two. Miners are not required in their occupation or calling in the Forces, but the Services today are a highly complicated profession and have a need for a certain number of skilled graduate teachers, which is one of the difficulties.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a very grave situation exists in certain parts of the country because of the very grave shortage of teachers, and especially in Birmingham and the Midlands area, and ought not something to be done to try to get more teachers?

This question was considered by my Technical Personnel Committee, which did not think it right to go further than the last concession which was announced in relation to those with third class honours and pass degrees in chemistry and biological science. I must, I am afraid, stick to the point that for the 1958 call-up I cannot go beyond the major concessions which the Government have announced.

Does that answer really mean that only those teachers are called up who can actually be used as teachers in the Services?

No, it does not mean that. I wish it were possible to allot the pegs to the holes quite as precisely as that. I did not mean to imply that for a second. What I say is that there is a need in the Services today for many of these people.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that for 1958 he did not propose to change the basis of the call-up, which presupposes that he may be considering a change for 1959. May I ask him whether, if that is the case, he would prepare a White Paper on the whole matter, because I think that the House will probably want to discuss the whole question of deferment? Teachers themselves are not the only people who have to be considered in this matter.