asked the Minister of Defence if he will now state the circumstances under which his plans provide for the operational use of thermo-nuclear weapons independently of the United States of America.

Within the scope of an answer to a Parliamentary Question, I cannot usefully add to the many statements which have been made on this important subject in the course of our debates.

Does the Minister of Defence remember that in the course of the last debate when this subject was raised and I challenged him on this point, first he said he could not answer until he had heard what the Leader of the Liberal Party had to say; then he said that he could not answer until the Prime Minister had returned from Moscow, although, he said, otherwise he was prepared to answer. Is it not a fact that there is no possibility of our using one of these thermo-nuclear weapons on our own? Is not the production and manufacture of these weapons by Britain simply what the soldiers are now calling an exercise in over-kill?

I have no wish to provide the hon. Gentleman with ammunition to use against his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and others.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this House, through a history of many hundreds of years, has been the principal pillar of the principle that truth should be told and light should be cast upon events? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment almost every vital piece of information relevant to the future lives of the people is being concealed by the Government? The people do not trust them. He ought to reconsider his attitude to this House and to the people and tell us what the facts are and let the people judge.

People will be given an opportunity to judge quite soon, when I have no doubt the result will not please the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent, under the amended agreement with the United States of America which relates to the exchange of information on non-nuclear parts of nuclear weapons, details have been given to this country of the circumstances under which an American missile was exploded prematurely in space by the pitch of a woman's voice talking to a fleet of taxi-cabs on short-wave radio.

I understand the incident to which I imagine the hon. Member refers occurred in America about eight years ago. Present-day rockets are fitted with much more sophisticated signal equipment designed to minimise the risk of interference.

Although this incident happened in the United States about eight years ago, is it not a fact that the conference of scientists which met last weekend at the United Nations still voiced apprehensions that the same kind of thing could happen again? Does it not illustrate the crazy structure which we are building up in the interests of so-called self-defence? Further, when the Minister gives these sweeping assurances about precautions taken when, for example, thermo-nuclear weapons are flown on trial flights, is he really in a position to give those assurances, because of the way these highly developed electronic devices may get out of our control?

The hon. Member is talking about nuclear weapons. There was no suggestion that a nuclear explosion took place as a result of this lady's voice in a taxi-cab. I understand that there was some interference. We have heard about the face that launched a thousand ships, but I understand that in this case there was some interference with the communication between the ground and the rocket. I am not quite sure whether that resulted in the destruction element in the rocket being operated or whether the operator on the ground decided to destroy the rocket. There is no question of a nuclear explosion having occurred as a result.

May I just clear the Minister's doubts on this matter?

The hon. Member asked quite a long supplementary queston.

asked the Minister of Defence if his estimate of 388,000 as the total number required in the Forces when National Service ends in December, 1962, still stands; how he intends to adjust the numbers called up to take account of the number of Regular recruits; and if he will reconsider the need to call up men born in 1939.

If the hon. Member will refer to paragraph 58 of the Defence White Paper of last year, he will see that the figure he has quoted was not a requirement, but was the upper limit then authorised for recruitment.

Since there are today 580,000 men in the Forces, and since the increase in recruiting has been maintained, could not the Minister now announce revised plans and thus end the unsettlement and uncertainty to them and their families?

I do not think there should be any uncertainty. The position has been made quite clear, and I have no reason to suppose that any change is going to be made in the call-up.

As the call-up is a very hit-or-miss affair between one man and another, would not the Minister con- sider hastening its end by at least six months?

Recruiting is going very well, but I have no reason to believe that it is going so well that we could end National Service earlier than the date now planned.

asked the Minister of Defence what study he is making of the possible use by the Royal Air Force and other Services of operational and transport aircraft developed from the Saunders Roe Hovercraft.

The Government are watching the development of this novel principle with close interest. It is too soon to judge what may be its practical military applications.

In view of the alarming lack of imagination shown by the Service Departments in the early stages of this invention, can the Minister assure us that support for its development will not fall between two stools, in view of the fact that one Department appeared to regard it as an aircraft and another Department appeared to regard it as a ship? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter, which is extremely serious?

I would not like to say which it is, but its development has been either entirely or almost entirely financed from Government sources through the National Research and Development Corporation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look particularly at the point that in its later stages of development it should not be shuffled from one Service Department to another simply because in the early stages it was turned down by one and accepted by the other?

I am very interested in the project. I am going to look at it very shortly, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is being watched very closely.

asked the Minister of Defence how far his regulations governing operational control of United States Strategic Air Command aircraft flying from Royal Air Force stations in the United Kingdom differ from those governing operational control of other United States aircraft in the United Kingdom.

The same arrangements apply to all U.S. military aircraft stationed in this country.

Will the Minister remind N.A.T.O. headquarters of this fact so that when N.A.T.O. officers make public statements about these matters they make it clear that if their aircraft are based here the British Government have an operational veto on their use?

I think the position is quite clear. Under the agreement, American aircraft will not operate from bases in Britain in an emergency except by the joint decision of the British and American Governments. I hope that that statement will make the position clear if there is any doubt on the subject.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be glad to have your guidance on the following point. A Question very similar to this was put down by me a week ago to the Minister of Defence. It was transferred to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it appears later on the Order Paper. Is it correct or quite fair that this treatment should be given to similar Questions?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that my Question No. 5 was put to the Prime Minister, who transferred it to the Minister of Defence?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question which is No. 29 today was first addressed to the Prime Minister, then it went to the Minister of Defence, and then to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There seems to be some confusion. I should like to know whether the Minister of Defence proposes to answer the Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the same matter.

Further to that point of order—

I have frequently said on this matter, and I will repeat once again, that I have no control over the transfer of Questions. It is entirely a matter for Ministers. It is not for me to express an opinion as to the correctness or not of the transfer, certainly without considering the wording of the Questions—there may be some emphasis one way or another of which I am not aware. It is a matter entirely for Ministers

On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may explain the matter, because it was at the request of the Government that these Questions were transferred. The original Questions on the Order Paper related to the question whether there had been a request from the North Atlantic Council to Her Majesty's Government. The matter of the North Atlantic Council is for the Foreign Office. Therefore, the Questions were properly transferred to the Foreign Secretary. If they had been all on the Order Paper at the same time, we could have answered them together. After that, a Question was put down asking whether we had had a request from the Supreme Allied Command in Europe, which is a matter properly to be addressed to the Minister of Defence. Therefore, the Questions have become separated in this way, which I think the House will understand.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the removal of American bombers to British bases will increase his defence expenditure.

The United States Government pay the cost of the facilities provided for their forces now in Britain. The same arrangements would apply to any further American forces which might be stationed here at any time.

Will the Minister suggest to the American authorities that, having regard to his statement in his own White Paper that it is not practicable to attempt to defend this country as a whole against nuclear attacks, it will be very unsafe for the Americans to bring their bombers here? Will he not be anti-American if he does not suggest to the Americans to take them away to a safer place like California, where the bombers will be safer, and so will we?

I do not know whether the hon. Member is thinking of going there himself. I do not believe that the American Air Force shares his anxiety.

asked the Minister of Defence what request he has received from the Supreme Allied Command in Europe for the basing in Great Britain of additional air force units.

The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe has informally discussed with us the problems which might arise in certain eventualities, but he has not made any formal request to us.

I am glad that I have enabled the Minister of Defence to take his proper place in the hierarchy. On this matter, will he, perhaps, think it wise to take this occasion to allay a good deal of feeling in the country by making plain that, if a formal request is required, or even during these informal discussions, it will be a major part of our position that the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman read out earlier applying to all existing American aeroplanes will apply to these if they have to come?

Of course, there can be no question about that.

Reverting to the explanation given a few moments ago by the Minister of Defence, what is the distinction between the Supreme Command and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Is not the Supreme Command an integral part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, responsible for defence matters?

I did not say "the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation". I referred to the North Atlantic Council, which is a political body. The Supreme Commander and his Headquarters are a military body, and that is the difference.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If that is so, I should like to direct your attention to the fact that my Question No. 29 and, I believe, the Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) refer to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and not to the North Atlantic Council. Is the Minister of Defence aware that some of us are familiar with the nomenclatures?

I could only repeat what I said before, but I shall not waste time by doing so.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is satisfied that the arrangements for the air defence of British Forces in the field overseas are adequate; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that the fighters and anti-aircraft artillery at present in service are adequate to provide protection against the present threat. In the future, the air defence of the Army will be further strengthened by the addition of surface-to-air guided missiles.

Is it not a fact—we are talking, I hope, of not too long an engagement here—that we have only two batteries of the Thunderbird which at any one time could engage only four aircraft? Is the Minister really saying that this is satisfactory in possible conditions of modern war?

The hon. Member has been reading the newspapers. Antiaircraft missiles for the Army are, so far, being issued for trials and training only. The number of units and the number of missiles per unit will be decided in the light of the results of these trials.

If the Minister thinks that we should not have to rely on newspapers for our defence information, would he care to suggest when it will be the case that our anti-aircraft defences overseas will be able to engage more than four aeroplanes at one time?

They are now.

asked the Minister of Defence how many volunteers have been turned away by recruiting officers during the last year because of lack of vacancies in the branch of service or unit in which they are prepared to serve.

These figures are, I am afraid, not recorded.

asked the Minister of Defence if he is satisfied with the progress made in the recruitment of officers for the Armed Forces; and if he will make a statement.

As I have said more than once to the House, I am not yet satisfied with the rate of recruitment of officers. A number of new schemes have recently been undertaken to attract more candidates and to widen the field of officer recruitment, and further action is being considered. I am hopeful that these various measures will produce an appreciable improvement.

Why is it that when conditions and pay have improved and the rate of recruiting has increased we are so short of officers? Are not the Service Departments still looking to the same narrow class from which to get their officers? Will they not look much further afield in these modern times?

We discussed that matter fully in our earlier debates. I have already explained to the House that the problem is not to break down prejudice or snobbery in the Army but to interest a wider range of schools in the prospects of a Service career. We are intensifying our efforts to sell the Services to the schools, and I have arranged to speak on this subject to headmasters at their annual conference in September.

Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why we are short of officers is that we are not getting enough officers from that narrow class, namely, the old military families? That is largely because the Government are paying boys' uncles and fathers pensions in dishonest money. When the right hon. Gentleman considers trying to get more recruits, will he consider the effect on recruitment of paying pensions to former serving officers in depreciated money? It is the pensions that have to go up.

And bear in mind how the officers treated us.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, improvements in pensions are being made.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is proposed to maintain the headquarters of the Supreme Command in Europe in France.

I know of no proposal to make any change.

Is the Minister aware that with the whole French Army in Algeria, with the Continental forces in embryo, with the German Army in futuro and only a limited amount of British and American Forces in a state of preparedness, we are hopelessly overwhelmed on land? In those circumstances, the frightening and terrifying thing is that the military argument for the use of thermonuclear strategic and technical weapons in that exposed position becomes terribly strong and the pressure for the precipitation of a world suicide may arise from this situation?

I do not know to where the hon. Gentleman would wish to transfer the headquarters, but it does not seem to have very much to do with the Question.

I would do away with them.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent effect has now been given to the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government that compassionate release would be available to National Service personnel where circumstances are established which would have justified a grant of exemption.

All applications by National Service men for compassionate release are considered sympathetically. Broadly speaking, any grounds which would justify postponement of call-up justify compassionate release.

Will the Minister call for an inquiry into the case of the Oldham soldier whose wife was living alone and expecting her first child when the house was broken into by night by a man intent on indecent assault and who has been the subject of further letters? The husband applied for compassionate leave or release, was refused both and told by the War Office that he had better pack his wife off to live with relatives in an overcrowded, two-roomed house a mile away and give up his home. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that case and inform the House of the result of his looking into it?

I am naturally not familiar with the circumstances of that case, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman has already got in touch with the Secretary of State for War about it.

In touch? I have been in conflict.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very strong case for widening grounds for compassionate release rather than ending any section of call-up earlier? We have urged this for some time. Would it not be a good thing to issue a directive to all three Services that they should considerably ease the grounds of compassionate release?

As the right hon. Gentleman may know, grounds for postponement of call-up have recently been widened. I think that my Answer makes it clear that those widened grounds for the postponement of call-up will apply equally to questions of application for compassionate release.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to obtain from the United States of America air-to-air defensive missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.

Our present plans provide for the equipment of British fighter squadrons with British air-to-air guided missiles. That does not, however, exclude the possibility of providing them with suitable weapons of foreign manufacture which may become available.

As one of those who can obtain information only by reading newspapers, will the Minister confirm or deny the report in a technical newspaper that we are at the moment contemplating purchasing a missile called GENIE from America? Is this true or not? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman decided to take the House and the country into his confidence and to tell us a bit more about these matters?

I will gladly tell the hon. Gentleman. We are considering this proposition, but no decision has yet been reached.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a further statement on the provision to Great Britain by the United States of America of information on solid rocket fuels.

There is a full exchange of information on solid rocket fuels between H.M. Government and the Government of the United States.

The Question does not ask about the exchange of information. It asks about the provision to us in a more active sense. Is the Minister saying that the position is still the same as when he last answered my Question on this matter and that there are no joint arrangements between us and America to provide solid rocket fuel for use in missiles here?

I have read the right hon. Gentleman's Question again. He says that it is nothing to do with information. It asks whether I will make a further statement on the provision of information on solid rocket fuels to Great Britain by the United States' Government. I gave him the Answer. In answer to his supplementary question, there is complete exchange of information and close collaboration on the development of these fuels. Up till now the fuel which I think the right hon. Gentleman has in mind has been developed in the United States. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations are going on between the American firm concerned and the British firm concerned for the further development and production of that fuel here in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government regarding the reconvening of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will take the steps necessary for reconvening the International Commission for Laos;

For a full statement of the position, I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answers my hon. Friend gave on 8th and 10th June. The Government of Laos have not disregarded the Geneva Agreements and we do not consider that the International Commission should be reconvened against their wishes.

Can the Minister of State say why in his replies to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and myself he concealed from the House and the country the fact that Mr. Nehru has urged the reconvening of the International Commission for Laos? In view of the fact that the Indian Government regard the presence of the International Commission as a guarantee of peace and stability in South-East Asia, does the right hon. Gentleman not regard that as a powerful argument for supporting the Indian Government instead of doing nothing again?

It is quite wrong to suggest that we have tried to mislead the House in any way. It is well known that the Indian Government have pressed for a reconvening of the International Commission. What we said we would not do was to publish the text of Mr. Nehru's statement to the British Government, for obvious reasons. It is, of course, also true that the Canadian Government, who form part of the International Commission, also do not think that it would be useful to reconvene the Commission at the present time.

Is it not the case that the International Commissions are not supposed to be disbanded until there has been a political settlement covering the whole of Indo-China? As that has not yet been achieved—for example, no elections have yet been held in Vietnam—will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter again?

The Question relates to the International Commission for Laos. It was postponed sine die last July and it is not proposed to reconvene it.

In view of the very great services rendered by the Indian Government, both in Indo-China and in Korea, ought we not to pay attention to the desires of Mr. Nehru?

We have, of course, paid the very greatest attention to what he has had to say. There has, however, been considerable exaggeration from the Communist side regarding the events that have been taking place in Laos.

rose—

On a point of order. I had two Questions—

The hon. Member asked a very comprehensive supplementary question.

No, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question—

Order.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish the amount of aid from all sources, for which Her Majesty's Government has some responsibility, given to Laos since the Geneva Agreements.

United Kingdom aid to Laos under the technical co-operation scheme of the Colombo Plan was approximately £30,000 from July, 1954, to 31st March, 1959.

While thanking the Under-Secretary of State for that Answer, may I ask if it is possible to speed up that aid in this area? Is he aware that some of us were informed by the technical aid people that the Colombo Plan authorities at the moment are failing to follow up the technical aid after it has been given, and that thereby it is nullified?

We are trying at the moment to see if we can put more money through the Colombo Plan for this kind of work. I have not heard about these complaints the hon. Member mentioned, but I should like to look into them.

asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to be able to complete the study of labour training facilities which his Department can offer to assist an incoming firm seeking to establish a factory at Douglas, Lanarkshire.

I wrote on 15th June to my hon. Friend about the particular proposal set out in his recent letter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason why I kept the Question on the Order Paper was in order that I could thank him for that reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and through him express thanks for the attention that his Department has given to the problems of this area? Could my hon. Friend bear in mind the point whether it might be possible for the Ministry of Labour trainee scheme to apply to the beginning of a new works in the area in question?

I feel grateful for my hon. Friend's gratitude. As I suggested in my letter, it would be rather difficult to decide this point on a hypothetical example, but if he could give me the facts of the situation I would certainly give it every consideration.

I thank my hon. Friend very much.

Is it not rather undesirable that our money should be spent on the hon. Member's gratitude?

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take note of what the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) said about the reason why he kept his Question on the Order Paper? Could you discourage Questions being put on the Order Paper other than for the purpose for which they are intended, namely, to ascertain information from the Minister.

May I submit for your guidance Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBIRS: "Oh."]—that if in putting a Question on the Order Paper to elicit information one can insinuate a note of gratitude instead of acrimony, it does no harm? It is particularly desirable in this case, because my hon. Friend was most helpful and I am most grateful.

I think the hon. Member brought this trouble on himself when he said that his purpose in putting down the Question was to express his gratitude.

rose—

Order. That is not the proper purpose of putting down a Question. If what the hon. Member said was a slip of the tongue and he put the Question down for the purpose of eliciting information, the House, of course, will forgive him the slip of the tongue, but he brought this trouble on himself by what he said.

Further to that point of order, I said that I "kept" the Question on the Order Paper, not "put" it on the Paper.

asked the Minister of Labour what consultations he had with the British Transport Commission to ensure that the decision on the future of the Kilmarnock railway workshop did not aggravate the unemployment situation in the area.

I understand that the decision to transfer work from Kilmarnock to Glasgow forms part of the British Transport Commission's plans for rationalised use of workshops in connection with their modernisation programme on lines recently announced. Alternative railway employment is being offered to those affected.

But I do not think that is a very satisfactory answer to the Question which I asked about what consultations have taken place. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I put this Question on the Order Paper to demonstrate to the people of Kilmarnock that we owe no gratitude to the hon. Gentleman and that this decision on the part of a Government Department which should have responsibility for employment in the Development Areas demonstrates that we can have no confidence at all in its efforts?

I think that my right hon. Friend made clear, when he answered another Question by the hon. Member on 4th May, that his Department is in constant touch with the Minister of Transport on this question. It is certainly true, of course, that unemployment or possible unemployment in the future is an important consideration, but it is only one of many which have to be taken into account.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered the point that in closing down a railway workshop it may well be that after consultation with the British Transport Commission and trade union representatives work is found elsewhere for the railway workers but, as in the case of Horwich in Lancashire, that part of the country depends on its very existence on that workshop. If the workshop is to be disbanded or not used by the Commission, does the hon. Gentleman not think that he should speak to his hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to make sure that the workshop is used to provide alternative employment and thereby keep the community going?

That is an important consideration which is taken into account. Not only have jobs been offered to those affected, but the loss to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock is someone else's gain, because this work has gone to a part of Scotland which has heavier unemployment than the present one.

asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of juveniles registering at the Coatbridge and Airdrie Employment Exchanges at the latest available date; and the number registered for the same period last year.

On 11th May, 1959, a total of 151 boys and girls were registered as unemployed at the Airdrie Youth Employment Office compared with 146 on 12th May, 1958. The corresponding figures for the Coatbridge Youth Employment Office were 152 and 88, respectively.