asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a further statement about the use of the N.A. 39 aircraft by the Royal Air Force.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the full answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on 28th January.

Can my right hon. Friend say when this new R.A.F. aircraft will be in the air? Will it be available by the mid-'sixties? As the N.A. 39 is based on a new concept of air warfare, does not my right hon. Friend think it would be wise to have a small order for these aircraft so that the R.A.F. can gain experience of this type?

As my hen. Friend says, this aeroplane is planned to go into service in the mid-'sixties. It would hopelessly delay things if we were to wait for production of a certain number of the N.A. 39 before going ahead to make this other new aircraft, the T.S.R. 2.

asked the Minister of Defence what stops have been taken to reduce the running costs of the 60-bed Hertford British Hospital in Paris following upon recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Some small reductions in staff have bean made. The size of the hospital staff is, however, governed by the range of facilities and treatment that have to be provided rather than by the number of patients to be treated. So long as the hospital is maintained in its present form, I see no prospect of appreciably reducing costs. I am, therefore, examining the practicability of finding some less expensive method of providing medical treatment for British Service personnel in the Paris area.

I would be the last person in the world to grudge any funds going to the sick, but does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a cost of £60 per bed per week is really excessive? Could we not make some reciprocal arrangements with the French so that any British personnel who are really ill can be given the best facilities available in French hospitals? I am quite sure that that could be done much more cheaply than on the present basis.

That is precisely what I am examining at the moment. The present arrangements are undoubtedly hopelessly uneconomic.

asked the Minister of Defence whether sufficient modern shipping is now available for lifting tanks and heavy vehicles from the British Isles and landing them on open beaches elsewhere.

Without knowing precisely what amphibious operations we might have to undertake in the future, it is difficult to define what is sufficient, but I consider that we are maintaining a reasonable number of specialised ships of this kind.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the class of ships of the special type that were built during the war are now too slow and could not face an ocean voyage, such as round the Cape? What is the use of spending millions on new tanks if we cannot take them out of the country? As amphibious operations are the special responsibility of my right hon. Friend's Department, would he look at this again?

I do not altogether accept what my hon. Friend says. The vessels we possess still have a number of years of useful life. The time to scrap them has not yet come, but that does not mean that we are not making plans to replace them in due course.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on tactical atomic bombs, explaining in what circumstances they might be used, the current expenditure on them, their kiloton power, and area of destruction; and to what extent it is intended to increase the present stock.

asked the Minister of Defence what new arrangements have been made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to ensure the issue of clear political directives to the military commanders on the use of nuclear weapons.

asked the Minister of Defence, (1) what thermonuclear or atomic weapons are now classified as strategic, tactical and defensive; and in which cases is special cabinet, or ministerial or supreme headquarters authority required for their use;

The question whether a weapon is being used in a strategic or a tactical rôle depends not upon its explosive power, but upon the nature and location of the target. I have no fresh information to give the House about the size of our stock of nuclear weapons or about their cost and explosive power, or about the procedure for authorising their use.

Does the Minister seriously believe that a British atom bomb could be dropped without starting a hydrogen bomb war; or that the potential enemy would have the time to measure the area of devastation before deciding the nature of the bomb responsible for it? Their standard of defining a tactical bomb might differ from ours.

I think the hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary question before he heard my reply, in which I made it clear that there is no way of drawing a line between what is a tactical and what is a strategic weapon except in relation to the target against which it is used. If, for example, an H.E. bomb were to be dropped on Moscow I would consider that to be a strategic weapon.

Surely, the potential of these weapons is so tremendous that the whole question of directives given to military commanders in the field is of paramount importance. Can we not have an assurance from the Minister that a clear directive is in existence that these weapons cannot and must not be used until political permission has been obtained? After all, some of these tactical weapons have two and a half times the power of the bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima. Surely we must have political command concerning this.

Again, I would not distinguish between the two classes of weapons. Naturally, there are proper arrangements for ensuring that these weapons are not loosed off without due consideration.

Are there proper arrangements? What are they?

It is difficult at first sight to understand why the Minister has joined Questions Nos. 6 and 36, which deal with entirely different situations. I wish to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 36. Is it not a fact that there were no clear political directives to the military commanders at S.H.A.P.E. as recently as a few months ago as to who would decide the weapons to be used in the event of a conflict and about who retained effective control over any decision to bring any kind of nuclear weapon into play? Question No. 36 asks the Minister whether any clear political directives have now been given. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be saying that they do exist, they must be new, because they did not exist formerly. Will he tell the House what these clear political directives are?

It is not a matter to be discussed in public. The right hon. Gentleman should not assume that he is in possession of all the facts.

That is the whole point of asking Questions. If I were in possession of the whole of the facts, I would not need to ask. This is not a private game for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but involves all the rest of us in Western Europe. On behalf of people who will be affected, am I not entitled to ask what political directives the Ministers in N.A.T.O. have Issued to the military commanders in the field?

All I am saying is that it would be very helpful to anybody who was planning an act of aggression against the West to have just that information.

It would be exceedingly helpful to us also if we had confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's clarity of mind. In the first instance he told us that there would be directives about these weapons. At the same time he said that it was not easy to define the weapons. In Question No. 6 he was asked to state the destructive power of the tactical atomic weapon. He has not told the House. He has not defined a tactical atomic weapon as against a strategic weapon, although he thinks that he has special directives for categories which he is unable to define.

I will not comment on the right hon. Gentleman's clarity of mind as revealed in his question. [Interruption.] He suggested that I was not very clear in my own mind. I thought I had made it quite clear that there was no possible definition in terms of explosive power as between a tactical and a strategic weapon. It depends on the purpose for which it is used and the target against which it is used. The reason why I coupled the two Questions together was that they were coupled also with Question No. 3, which was not called because the hon. Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Hale) was not present. This Question dealt with both these subjects and it was difficult to separate them.

Is the Minister aware that the statement he has made to the House is not supported by any general; and that the generals have indeed defined, with respect both to explosive power and to target areas, what they consider to be tactical atomic weapons as against strategic weapons? The right hon. Gentleman's answer makes nonsense.

I am glad to hear that for the first time the right hon. Gentleman always regards what generals say as gospel truth.

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment and shall hope to get some information.

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy, as laid down in paragraphs 12 and 23 of the 1958 Defence White Paper, to use strategic nuclear weapons against a major attack with conventional arms involving any country covered by the collective defence provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, and the Bagdad Pact.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the Government still base their defence policy on the principle that the West can and should rely for its defence primarily upon the deterrent effect of its stockpile of nuclear weapons and its capacity to deliver them.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the opinion expressed by Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers in Europe, at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference last December, to the effect that if tactical atomic weapons were used on opposite sides in a local conflict the result would be a nuclear world war, he has now modified the policy, announced in the 1956 and 1957 Defence White Papers, of using the Royal Air Force armed with tactical atomic weapons to help put down alleged Communist or alleged nationalist risings in the territories of countries whose rulers ask for such assistance.

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy, as declared in the Defence White Paper, 1958, to resort to strategic nuclear weapons against what they deem to be a major attack with conventional arms against a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or Bagdad Pact country in Europe or the Middle East or against a South-East Asia Treaty Organisation country in the Far East.

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still part of the Government's defence policy, as proclaimed in the 1956 and 1957 Defence White Papers, to use British forces, including the Royal Air Force armed with tactical atomic weapons, against subversion, whether allegedly Communist, or allegedly Nationalist, in the territories of other countries.

I have no new statement to make about the policy of H.M. Government in regard to the use of nuclear weapons.

Does that mean that the 1958 White Paper stands? Has the Minister reflected on this policy? Does he not now consider that it is a policy of utter madness for this country to threaten to initiate hydrogen bomb warfare, which would be suicide for these islands? Is that not a policy of lunacy?

If it is a policy of lunacy, that lunacy is widely spread. [Interruption.] I do not believe it to be lunacy. I believe that it is because of the existence of the nuclear deterrent during these past years that we have had a reasonable prospect of peace in the free world.

Is the Minister telling us that he accepts a policy, and proposes to apply it if necessary, that will result in the obliteration of these islands? Is that what he is determined upon?

I really do not know what the hon. Member is talking about. He seems to suggest that we have enunciated a policy of aggression.

Has the Minister read Question No. 18, which appears in my name?

I have read all these Questions and almost every one of them contains an inaccurate summarising of the White Paper.

Where?

Is the Minister aware that every time since 1957 when he has tried to meet requests for information in the House on nuclear weapons he has retired into both this obtuseness and this rudeness? Is it significant that this year's White Paper contains no reference whatever to this problem? It is not mentioned from beginning to end. Does that mean that the Minister has given up trying to clear his own mind?

Last year the right hon. Gentleman complained that we said too much.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is creating a painful impression on the House by what he is saying? We understand that for security reasons it is sometimes difficult for Ministers to give precise information, but we do expect clarity of mind. It was always considered that to use strategic weapons against conventional attack would be suicidal. That is why the idea of tactical atomic weapons was devised. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have cleared his mind about the field of operation for the tactical atomic weapon.

I would not myself refer to the right hon. Gentleman for clarity or advice upon strategy. So far as the general issue is concerned, I thought I had made it crystal clear. I was asked if there had been any change in our policy in regard to these matters, and I said that I had no further statement to make, implying—I will make it clearer—that there has been no change in our policy.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at S.H.A.P.E. last December it was pointed out that any local conflict would develop into a world war if both sides used tactical atomic weapons? In those circumstances does he really maintain the claim of the Government to use tactical atomic weapons, contained in paragraph 27 of the 1957 White Paper and in paragraph 8, subparagraph (ii) of the 1956 Defence White Paper, against alleged Communist subversion or alleged Nationalist subversion, or on the occasions mentioned by the Prime Minister on 17th July last?

First of all, the hon. Gentleman's reference to what he alleges is said in the White Paper is very far from an accurate summary of what the White Paper did contain. As for the statement at the beginning of his Question, on which the whole Question is based, I have made inquiries at Supreme Allied Headquarters. They cannot trace any statement or opinion of the kind.

On a point of order. As the right hon. Gentleman doubts the accuracy of my reference, may I read the relevant passage?

No.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in the light of the facts known today, his policy is still based on the assessment expressed in the 1958 Defence White Paper that Soviet progress In rocket development has not upset the balance of military power and that the Western Powers are still superior in this field and their overall superiority is likely to increase rather than diminish.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent Her Majesty's Government's defence policy is still based on the assumption, declared in the 1958 Defence White Paper, that Soviet progress in rocket development has not changed the military balance of power and that alleged all-round Western superiority in nuclear weapons is likely to increase rather than diminish.

I see no reason to modify the assessment of the military position, as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Defence White Paper of 1958.

Does that mean that the Minister of Defence is now asserting, in spite of all that has happened in the past few months, that we have superiority in rocket development? Does it mean that, in the face of all this evidence, he is now asserting that our superiority is increasing rather than diminishing? Is that the assertion he is making?

I will not try to summarise several paragraphs in the White Paper. All I would say is that there can be no doubt that the West still possesses indisputable superiority in nuclear hitting power.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that military authorities, for example, General James Gavin, former chief of the United States Army Research and Development, and Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, have pointed out that it is no longer the case? Does he not think that the safety of this country would be better served by facing these facts in a spirit of realism and drawing the appropriate military and political conclusions for our defence policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—than by a defence policy based on the day-dreams of a nuclear Walter Mitty?

I called the hon. Member to ask Question No. 11, which is in his name.

To ask the Minister of Defence, how far it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as announced in the 1957 Defence White Paper, to rely on United States protection, since this country cannot be defended against nuclear attack.

Mr. Zilliacus—Mrs. McLaughlin.

With permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 30 together.

On a point of order. Which Question has been answered? I thought the right hon. Gentleman was answering a Question about freight aircraft. The answer did not seem to be related to that at all.

Question No. 11.

On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I do not believe that the answer given by my right hon. Friend can be the answer to my Question No. 12.

The Question which was asked was No. 12. Has the right hon. Gentleman given an answer to it?

On a point of order. May I ask a supplementary question on my Question No. 11?

Mr. Zilliacus.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that in the view of Field Marshal Lord Montgomery—

That is not a point of order at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence consult his papers to see whether in fact he has answered Question No. 12?

On a point of order. In the commotion, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly. Did I understand him to say he was answering Questions 12 and 30 together? If so, will he kindly explain what possible connection there is between the two?

The answer was to Question No. 12. Mrs. McLaughlin asked it: Is the Minister

"ready to make a statement about the long range troop and freight aircraft which is to be ordered."

The answer was the answer to Question No. 11.

The reason why I answered Question No. 11, Mr. Speaker, was because I thought that you had allowed a rather late intervention by the hon. Member. I will answer Question No. 12.

On a point of order. Whether my Question has or has not been answered, I have not asked a supplementary.

I called the hon. Member and he did not ask it.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is now ready to make a statement about the long range troop and freight aircraft which is to be ordered.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a further statement about the replacement of existing strategic air freighters and the provision of new freighters with longer range and greater capacity.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now state his proposals for the provision of a long-range freight aircraft for Royal Air Force Transport Command.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that the requirements of the Army will be given full weight in the consideration of the type of long range freighter aircraft to be ordered for Transport Command.

In order to carry especially heavy and bulky loads, it has been decided to buy a number of long-range freighter aircraft for Royal Air Force Transport Command. The type selected is the Britannic 3, a freighter version of the Britannia to be built by Short and Harlands of Belfast.

May I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, despite the long delay there has been in taking this decision, and may I also say to him that it will give tremendous encouragement to the people of Northern Ireland now to realise that this aircraft has been vindicated as being the right kind to be chosen for British forces? May I further assure him that the amount of work given to Northern Ireland will be a tremendous encouragement there?

Can my right hon. Friend say roughly when this aircraft will be in the air?

And for how long?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Blackburn 107 could be in the air in five years? Can he say whether the new Britannia will be flying within the same period of time?

Yes, roughly.

Would the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied that the Army has accepted the position that this aeroplane will not have front loading facilities? Does he seriously take the view that the decision on a plane as comparatively as slow as this, compared with jets, is a wise decision when we are talking about something which will not in fact be available in the air for another six years or so?

The loading arrangements are in accordance with the Army's requirements. As for the speed and performance of this aircraft, of course it will fit in very well with the Britannias which are to carry the troops and the less bulky freight.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision in this matter will be particularly welcomed because a British aircraft has been ordered? Can he say a word to explain why there has been such a long delay in placing the order, which was foreshadowed in last year's defence White Paper?

There are two reasons for delay.

Who are they?

One is that it is a complicated requirement that has had to be considered very carefully not only inside the Government Departments concerned but also with the industry. The second is that we thought it right to try to choose an aeroplane which would not only meet military requirements but also might have a civilian market.

Is the Minister quite convinced that this aircraft is a superior aircraft to the other two designs submitted, and that the jets fly higher, faster longer and farther? Can he say whether this design was chosen because of the merits of the machine or because of the economic conditions of Northern Ireland? If it was for the latter reason, would it not have been better to have chosen the best machine and to have sub-contracted some of the work out to Northern Ireland?

This aircraft was chosen primarily, of course, on military grounds to meet military requirements, but, as I said a moment ago, in choosing it we naturally did think it right, as we have a responsibility to the country as a whole, and not only to the Services, to try to adopt a type which might also be the best for a civilian requirement. It is very expensive to order a small number of aeroplanes for the Services alone, if there is no prospect of any civilian market.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent he is being kept informed of United States progress with the design of an anti-missile missile.

We and the Americans are collaborating very closely in this field.

Are our scientists working on this project in Florida, and is there adequate machinery for giving and receiving information and exchanging experience between our scientists and the Americans?

Yes, Sir. Our people are going backwards and forwards, and so are theirs; there is the fullest ex-change of information between us on this difficult problem.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement on his proposals for the improvement of widows' pensions governed by the present code.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to officers' widows' pensions.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is now in a position to state the improvements in the Service widows' pensions of future widows of retired officers and other ranks, existing widows of retired officers and other ranks, and widows of retired officers and other ranks who by reason of their early date of retirement or widowhood cannot draw National Insurance benefit, respectively.

It will be seen from paragraph 41 of the Defence White Paper, issued yesterday, that the Government have decided that the future widows of officers and other ranks who have already retired should, when entitled to a widow's pension, receive one-third of the pension the husband was drawing.

Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for this small step forward, which will be very much appreciated, may I ask whether I am to understand from certain suggestions which have been made in the Press today that the Cabinet is going to deal with these older widows as well as those who are covered by the Pensions (Increases) Act? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we have waited and they have waited a very long time on very low pensions? Will he bear in mind that if he cannot answer the Question fairly shortly, I shall have to try to divide the House on the Army Estimates?

I think my hon. Friend will find that this subject is perhaps outside the scope of that debate. I should like to say that I am just as anxious as my hon. Friend, or anybody else in the House, to get this matter settled.

Good, good.

But any adjustment of pensions in one category inevitably has repercussions on a whole series of other categories of State pensions. Therefore, a great many consultations must take place. But I assure my hon. Friend that all categories of existing Service widows are included in the scope of the examination which is now proceeding.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when he considers these matters, he will pay particular attention to the very difficult position of widows who are unable to draw National Insurance benefit?

That point will not be overlooked.

asked the Minister of Defence what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that missile bases are not sited in areas designed to receive women and children evacuated from British cities.

All the normal consultations took place between the Departments concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a complete separation of missile base sites and areas of evacuation? If the right hon. Gentleman does nothing else, will he at least ensure that Swaffham is struck off the list of the areas to which women and children from metropolitan Essex are supposed to be evacuated?

If the hon. Member wants to ask questions about evacuation policy, he should address them to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

asked the Minister of Defence what consultations have taken place between his Department and representatives of the United States of America attending the Geneva Conference on safe- guards against surprise attack, with particular reference to the carriage of nuclear bombs over United Kingdom territory.

Her Majesty's Government have had full consultations with the other Western Governments represented at the Geneva Conference about surprise attack. These consultations which covered all the main aspects of this problem were naturally of a confidential character.

May I ask whether, in the course of these consultations, the right hon. Gentleman was informed by Mr. Secretary McElvoy that the Strategic Air Command in the United States has now forbidden the carriage of nuclear bombs over American territory? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Secretary McElvoy said this at a Senate inquiry on 2nd February, which was reported on 4th February in the Manchester Guardian and other newspapers? Will the right hon. Gentleman now take action to forbid the carrying of nuclear weapons over British territory?

My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made a very full statement on 4th February last year in which he explained fully what the arrangements were for the carriage of nuclear weapons and how rarely this occurs. I have nothing to add to that statement.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) what discussions have taken place in the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the desirability of permitting Germany to construct submarines and other naval vessels in excess of the limits laid down in the Paris agreements;

The proceedings of the Military Committee of N.A.T.O. are confidential.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he cannot hide behind that, firstly, because these proposals have been fully discussed and disclosed in the Press, and secondly, because the House and the country have a right to know what is the Government's policy in these very serious matters? Are the Government now conniving at the policy of illicitly rebuilding German military power, as their predecessors did in 1935? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that following such a policy today may have disastrous consequences similar to the consequences that followed it in the days of Hitler?

I think the hon. Gentleman is getting worked up about something which really does not exist. The only two amendments to the limitations on German armaments manufacture under the Brussels Treaty that have been made are these—Germany has obtained permission to build a training ship of about 5,000 tons and has been authorised to manufacture guided anti-tank missiles.

Whilst I understand the Minister's difficulty in telling us in public what discussions are going on in N.A.T.O. and I see his point strongly, nevertheless, if there were any change in respect of the subject matter of these Questions, it would be of considerable interest and importance. If that ever comes about, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will then make a full statement in the House, instead of letting the thing proceed under this cloak of secrecy?

This is really not a live issue. I do not know where the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) has got these rumours. Without committing any great indiscretion, I think I can tell the House that these matters have not been discussed by the Military Committee.

Will the Minister accept it from me that at the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference in December these subjects were discussed and raised, on the initiative of German delegates from the German Federal Bundeshaus, and, therefore, these are not rumours? These subjects have been discussed. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have not been discussed by Ministers. We are grateful to him, but we wish that he had said that in the first place.

On a point of order. As the Minister has challenged the sources of my information, may I ask whether, if I send him some Press cuttings on the subject,—

That is not a point of order.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the development of botulinus toxin, and other new forms of germ warfare.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply gave on 26th January.

But is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said that this work is nearly entirely defensive? Even if only 1 per cent. were offensive, does he not think that it is 1 per cent. too much and should be stopped immediately; so would the Government raise the matter at the United Nations to stop the whole filthy business as quickly as possible?

My information is that it is entirely defensive.

Will the Minister correct the impression given to the House last week by the Minister of Supply that the Government regard bacteriological weapons as just one more conventional weapon of no particular danger? Is it not a fact that experts regard this as a most dangerous new development of warfare?

I think the danger of these weapons is very much exaggerated, but I can assure the House that we have no plans whatsoever to develop or manufacture weapons of this kind for use by ourselves.

Is it not a fact that, far from being new, the attention of this country was first directed to germ warfare as a result of experiments carried out in Russia in 1924? Is it not further the fact that the first Labour Government placed the matter under the direction of the Office of Works?

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the decision to station the 47th British Rocket Regiment at Dortmund in the centre of a thickly-populated region.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), on 4th February.

But is the Minister aware that, whatever he may have said, the people there do not share his complacency and that last week 80,000 Dortmund workers went on token strike against his decision? How should we like it if he did a similar thing in Manchester?

I suppose this is about the same as the people of Swaffham feel. If the hon. Gentleman will study the reply I gave earlier, it might be helpful. He will find that I made it clear that the site of this unit near Dortmund is purely a temporary site, or, rather, I should say it is what we might call a non-operational site. If there were an emergency there is no question of the unit operating from that site. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why is it there then?"] Because it is a convenient place to station the unit. All units are not kept permanently on their operational sites and, if there were an emergency, this unit, like others, would move out of Dortmund quite a number of miles to its operational position. I would add that the unit does not hold on that site the warheads for this weapon.

asked the Minister of Defence what research and development work is being done in the Services to facilitate the landing and taking off of aircraft during fog.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air yesterday.

Surely not only the Air Ministry is concerned in this? Are not all the Fighting Services concerned in developing something which has much greater promise of a more effective and cheaper method of handling fog than F.I.D.O. or fog dispersal?

I thought the hon. Gentleman was mainly concerned with the Air Force. I can assure him that the Navy is also examining possibilities of developing a fully automatic blind landing system for carriers.

asked the Minister of Defence what evidence has recently been placed before him that Intelligence personnel in the Armed Forces are given instruction and training in the extraction of information from prisoners of war by improper physical methods; by what authority this is done; and whether he will make a statement.

None, Sir. All training of this kind is in strict accord with Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made any recent inquiries about this, and if I send him a letter I have received from a gentleman who claims to have gone through a course of this kind, will he investigate it and undertake not to take any proceedings under the Official Secrets Act, or anything of that kind, which would prevent him from looking at the evidence and examining it?

Most certainly, Sir.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the latest available figures of recruitment for the Forces.

Since the answer contains a table of figures, I will with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether there has been some improvement in the position?

There has been some improvement.

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy that, in the event of war, defence activities against enemy air attack must be confined to the protection of military airfields and air bases.

The practical limitations of air defence, as explained in the Defence White Paper of 1957, still remain valid.

Does that reply mean, if I may press the right hon. Gentleman to put it into specific terms which the people of this country can understand, that in the event of nuclear war there would be no possibility whatever of defending the civil population of this country? If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the purpose of this complicated and expensive accumulation of horror weapons, and will he advise the Prime Minister to change the name of his Department from Defence to the Department of Potential Retaliation?

It was made clear in the White Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers that although our defences could no doubt deal with a very high proportion of any enemy bomber aircraft attacking this country—probably a higher proportion than during the last war—nonetheless, with the tremendous explosive power of modern weapons, if even a few were to get through it would be sufficient to create widespread devastation. Therefore, we could not honestly say to the people of this country that in the present state of scientific knowledge there is any effective means of defending the country as a whole.

With reference to reliance on the United States to supply this deficiency, is it not a fact that recent developments in Soviet inter-continental ballistic missiles have made the United States population as vulnerable as our own, and that in the circumstances the consensus of military opinion is that the United States would not use strategic nuclear weapons on behalf of any other country in view of what would happen to it in return, so that the whole basis of the Government's strategy has collapsed?

The hon. Gentleman should have been awake when Question No. 11 was called.

In view of the suggestion that the fighters and missile defences being stationed around the deterrent bases leaves the civilian population completely uncovered, would not the Minister like to consider whether it is not a fact that any interception, either by fighter planes or missiles, no matter where they start from, is bound to be some way off from these islands if it is to be effective, and therefore will be protecting the civilian population as well as the bases around which they are sited? Is that not so?

It is inevitable that, in defending an area, one defends something more than the bases.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the improvement in the recruitment of men for the Forces, he will advance the date for the termination of the call-up.

I am afraid it would not be practicable to advance the date.

As the Minister has admitted that there has been a substantial improvement in the recruitment figures, and as I think he will admit that National Service is very costly and that after a prolonged period of training the men are not of very great value to the Services, would it not be to our advantage and to the advantage of the men concerned to suspend the call-up at an earlier date?

I must say the change of tune is very striking. A year ago I was told we would not get the recruits, now I am being urged to end National Service a year earlier.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this matter I have never changed my tune, whereas he has changed his tune several times since he became Minister of Defence?

asked the Minister of Defence what steps have been taken to co-ordinate with other Western Powers the necessary military plans required to preserve British rights over existing routes to Berlin to meet any possible blockade.

Consultations are proceeding with the Governments concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, correct the impression which has arisen in America that there is some reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to co-ordinate with our Allies the necessary steps for the protection of the position of the Western Powers in Berlin?

I think it has already been made clear that that is untrue.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give details of the additional military and financial commitments entered into by Great Britain at the recent meeting of the Bagdad Pact Council at Karachi.

Her Majesty's Government entered into no new military commitment.

We will, of course, do that. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's broadcast from Karachi, I see that he said, according to the telegram which was distributed by the Foreign Office containing the substance of his broadcast, that on the military side we are holding forces in readiness to support our Allies should the need arise. This looked like something very much more positive and new than has ever been suggested before. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he meant by that phrase?

It was virtually a quotation from the Defence White Paper of 1957.

The right hon. Gentleman says, as I understand it, that he entered into no additional military commitments; but the Question asks about financial commitments as well. Were there any additional financial commitments?

I said in my reply that I hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) would wait for the reply of the Foreign Secretary to Question No. 58.

Since the Minister relies upon the words he used being a quotation from the 1957 White Paper, will he tell us where these forces have been held in readiness from that date until now? To which forces is he referring?

In the 1957 White Paper we said that we would maintain Canberra air squadrons in Cyprus available to support the Bagdad Pact. I also referred—I have no wish to add to or subtract from anything said in the White Paper—to the availability of troops which might at the time be stationed in the Middle Eastern area.

In Cyprus?

I was not referring solely to Cyprus.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Persia.

On my way back from attending a Meeting of the Council of the Bagdad Pact at Karachi, I stopped off in Persia for two days, at the invitation of H.M. Ambassador. During my stay in Teheran, I had the honour to be received by His Imperial Majesty the Shah and I had talks with the Persian Prime Minister and other Ministers.

Would the Minister care to take us into his confidence enough to tell us what he was talking about? The point of asking the Question was that we were interested in the talks that he had, the subjects that they were on and what commitments, if any, flowed from them. Is it true that the Prime Minister of Persia was the one who made most criticisms at the Karachi meeting about the inadequacies of the Pact, and did the Minister enter into any discussions or commitments on that side when he was in Persia?

I do not think it would be a breach of confidence if I said that there is no truth whatsoever in the suggestion that complaints were made at the Karachi meeting by the Persian Government about the inadequacy of the Pact. The conversations which I had were, naturally, confidential, but I think I can tell the House that we discussed generally the international situation.

Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss at all the new headquarters for the Bagdad Pact? Is it going to be Teheran? If so, is he going to change the name, or is he going to put the new headquarters on wheels?

The new headquarters is already established in Ankara.

Is it the Ankara Pact now?

asked the Minister of Defence in what way the security regulations made by him for the British military bases used by the United States forces such as the Royal Air Force station, Sculthorpe, differ from the security regulations for British bases used by British forces.

The security measures at air stations used by American forces are the responsibility of the American Base Commander. The regulations governing them are drawn up in consultation with the Air Ministry. They are not materially different from the normal R.A.F. security arrangements.

In the course of these consultations, will the Minister impress on the United States authorities that these incidents are quite unnecessary and that if they exercised a little more common sense and had a little less of a cowboys-and-Indians approach to the problem it would be far more effective in the long run and certainly much more welcome in this country?

I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is well appreciated by all concerned. In the case of the last incident there is no doubt that an error was made, and an apology has been given to the person concerned. I do not think there is any advantage in pursuing the matter further.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the agreement with the Japanese Government signed in October, 1953, regarding criminal jurisdiction over British, Commonwealth and American forces in Japan has now been terminated;

As was explained by my noble Friend in another place on 3rd February, the Protocol of October, 1953, was superseded in 1954 by the Agreement regarding the Status of United Nations Forces in Japan, which incorporated the provisions of the Protocol. Six United Kingdom Service men were tried in Japanese courts in 1954, as a result of two cases of robbery with violence committed against Japanese citizens. Three of the men were tried in March, 1954, and sentenced to 3½, 4 and 5 years' penal servitude. The three others were tried in December, 1954, and each was sentenced to five years' penal servitude (reduced to four years on appeal). All were released on parole after serving a part of their sentences and were permitted to leave Japan. Only one of the men concerned remains on parole under Japanese law. The term of his sentence is due to end next month and it is not proposed to make any representations to the Japanese Government in this connection.

Might I ask the hon. Gentleman two supplementary questions as he has answered three Questions together? First, is he aware that I hold in my hand a parole form of a British Service man in this country at this moment and that it is in operation until 8th March this year? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under this form the Service man is not permitted to travel further than 200 kilometres from his house, that he is not allowed to be absent from his house for three days and that he must refrain from all drinking? As the parole form is issued not merely by the Japanese Government but by the Japanese Government in agreement with Her Majesty's Government will the hon. Gentleman clear up the matter of the validity of such forms?

I think the hon. Member has put quite enough interrogation in his first supplementary question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My three Questions raise two distinct points. The first is the point about parole, about which I have put a supplementary question. The second point concerns the conditions of these Service men in Japanese prisons. Surely we are sufficiently concerned about our ex-Service men to be allowed to put a supplementary question on this subject.

It is a large subject. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might try to discuss it on the Adjournment. It seems too large a subject for Question Time. We had better hear what the Minister has to say about the hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question.

I think I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at ease on his first supplementary question, though I do not know what else he is going to ask. Japanese law does not apply in this country, and, therefore, these men are virtually free.

May I now ask the hon. Gentleman a second supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

Let us now have the supplementary question to Question No. 49.

Is it not a fact that most of the boys who were sentenced to three years' and five years' imprisonment in Japan were National Service men in their late 'teens and early twenties who had returned from the mud, blood and terror of the Korean war and because of violence on one night out were sentenced to those long periods? Is it not a fact that they were starved in prison and put in dungeons, and that the War Office showed attention to their situation only after they had mutinied? Ought not the War Office now to provide some compensation for men whom it neglected during those years?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a lot of questions. I think the first answer to him is that we entered into an agreement with the Japanese Government. It was not just the United Kingdom which did this; it was an agreement on behalf of the United Nations forces.

By General MacArthur?

It was not General MacArthur. If the hon. Gentleman will look at my Answer he will see that the agreement was remade the other day. It behoves us as well as the other members of the United Nations honourably to uphold these agreements.

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