asked the Minister of Defence if he will make arrangements by which men in the forces abroad who disobey orders on conscientious grounds shall have the same opportunity as Service men in this country to appear at a tribunal after serving three months' imprisonment.

Yes, Sir. It has been agreed that the present arrangements under which Service men who commit offences on grounds of conscience in this country are allowed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal shall be extended, subject to Service requirements, to men serving overseas. Detailed instructions for giving effect to this decision are being worked out.

May I express appreciation for that answer? What are the limitations of Service requirements? Does it mean technical matters of transport, or does it mean that there might be particular circumstances in an overseas territory which for other reasons would prevent men coming before a tribunal?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It means the real exigencies of the Service. I do not want to limit this. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until we have worked out the details. I am naturally anxious to make this work efficiently and ensure that men who wish to appeal to a tribunal are able to do so.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Defence, in view of his statement to Western European Union that the West will no longer have as its main objective preparation for a long conventional struggle, what change of policy he proposes in the laying down of new aircraft carriers.

No decision has yet been taken about laying down new aircraft carriers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very sustained campaign has been carried on by the Admiralty to prepare the way for the replacement of the present aircraft carriers? Does he not think that that is quite unnecessary, if this is his policy?

I am not aware of any sustained campaign by the Admiralty. What I am aware of is that we have to take some big decisions in due course about the replacement of the Fleet carriers, some of which, as many hon. Members know, are approaching the end of their useful life. I merely wanted to make it plain at the moment that this decision has not been taken.

We were hoping that the right hon. Gentleman's observations at Western European Union would be the prelude to the statement that further aircraft carriers were not to be laid down. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our aircraft carriers are not merely individually obsolete but obsolete as a type?

This is a matter of opinion, and I must not be taken as necessarily agreeing with this thesis. For example, other nations are considering building very large numbers of aircraft carriers. I think it is very questionable, and certainly not a matter for immediate decision, whether their day has gone.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the provision of replacement carriers is only the first step? The provision of replacement aircraft is likely to cost many hundreds of millions of pounds. When the time comes, will he give serious consideration to whether there is not some other more effective vessel available, possibly at a lower price?

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend puts it very fairly. This is a very large and complex decision. I have made it quite plain that the Government have not yet considered it, much less taken any decision upon it.

Is it not a rather surprising announcement for the Minister to make that, after having held his present office for some years and after the previous occupant of the office changed the whole policy in 1957, the Government have not only not made up their mind but have not yet considered whether we need replacements? Does the Minister think that we can wait very much longer, if any ultimate decision could possibly be in time at all?

That is the right hon. Gentleman's view. I do not know whether he wants me to withdraw the word "consideration". Of course, I have given consideration to it. I want to make it plain that this is a big decision and it has not yet been taken. When it is taken, that is a matter that should be debated here; but that is not the immediate prospect.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of his reference to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's conventional forces in his speech to Western European Union on 1st June, these forces will now be fully equipped with nuclear weapons of limited range.

N.A.T.O.'s forces are being armed and equipped to meet the present requirements laid down by SACEUR under current N.A.T.O. strategy with both nuclear and conventional weapons.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Question refers to his speech. Is he also aware that in that speech he practically reduced the term "conventional" to meaninglessness? Is he aware that this equipping of the conventional forces with nuclear weapons makes the danger of nuclear war much greater than before?

I do not think the hon. Member has read my speech.

I have done, very carefully.

I will send him a copy, because I made quite plain in it the careful balance that has to be drawn between the conventional and nuclear capabilities of a modern force. What I am anxious to make plain is that we are carrying out exactly N.A.T.O. policy as laid down by N.A.T.O. and by SACEUR. I do not see what more we can do than that.

Is not the Minister aware that his speech was almost universally interpreted as being in direct contradiction, for example, to President Kennedy's views in his defence message to Congress, in which President Kennedy said that

"our objective now is to increase our ability to confine our response to non-nuclear weapons"?

Is not that a much better doctrine?

How my speech was interpreted is hardly a matter for me. What I said was not at all out of line with recent statements made by defence spokesmen in the United States.

The Minister will not deny that he actually said:

"An aggressor cannot assume that we should be prepared to 'limit the war' to suit his own tactical plan…"

Was the Minister, therefore, saying that we should be prepared to make the war unlimited to suit our plan? Is not that a flat contradiction not only of President Kennedy but of what Admiral Brown said to the very same conference?

No, I do not agree. The position is quite plain and is set out plainly in other portions of my speech. In the Government's view, it is not in the interest of maintaining the deterrent to war to set out a clear list of rules or statements showing exactly the kind of reaction which one would make to any action by an aggressor. We have no intention of doing that.

rose—

We must get on. We are making very small progress.

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the consent of all North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments would be required before nuclear weapons could be used by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces.

The Government's primary concern is to ensure that the arrangements for controlling the use of nuclear weapons in N.A.T.O. should be such that the credibility of the deterrent is not weakened. This is one of the problems now being studied in the North Atlantic Council as part of the review of N.A.T.O. strategy.

Can we take it that Her Majesty's Government would agree that in no circumstances should nuclear weapons be used by N.A.T.O. forces except under the terms of the directive which has itself been approved by our own Government acting through the Cabinet?

Yes, I think that follows what I said earlier, that General Norstad must be subject to direct political control.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to his previous answer, the arrangements as understood certainly in Germany are that nuclear weapons will be ordered by the general on the spot, where it is necessary to hold conventional forces, without previous reference back for political authorisation at all? If the right hon. Gentleman's view is different from that, will he look into the matter and reassure the House about it?

I have been to Germany and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is not so. If he does not believe me, I will arrange for him to go to Germany and find out for himself.

Will the right hon. Gentleman qualify the last part of his reply? When he talks about political control, can we take it that that political control is a control shared jointly by the various Governments of the N.A.T.O. alliance and certainly those who actually possess nuclear weapons themselves?

Yes, the position is, as General Norstad has stated, that he is subject to authorisation from the N.A.T.O. Political Council, which is representative of the Governments which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, before he could authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an undertaking that the British Government will always oppose the use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, first by member States of the Western Alliance.

Decisions about the use of nuclear weapons must be taken in the circumstances of the time.

That answer does not enlighten us very much. Would not the Minister agree that since the White Paper of 1958 there has been quite a lot of fresh thinking and discussion on this subject among many of the so-called experts on the subject; and since his speech of a few days ago has only added to the confusion on this matter, will he not consider issuing a statement of the whole arguments under which the Government are apparently upholding the doctrine that we should be prepared to use these weapons first?

I do not think my speech will be misread by any possible aggressor, and that was its purpose.

If the right hon. Gentleman defends this policy of holding open the threat in some circumstances to use nuclear weapons first as a deterrent, will he explain how the deterrent works in order to frighten people from doing things which he does not specify?

If I went into details I should, no doubt, incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker. The simple answer is that it is part of the validity of the deterrent that an aggressor should not be certain what reaction is made to any aggression.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the fact that the fire-power and general efficiency of Soviet military units is growing at an equal pace with that of Western units, he is satisfied that the level of British forces in the British Army of the Rhine is adequate to meet United Kingdom treaty commitments.

asked the Minister of Defence whether his references to the defence responsibilities of Great Britain, in his recent speech to the Assembly of Western European Union, included the obligation to maintain the equivalent of four divisions in Germany.

asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the fact that the qualitative improvement of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation units is matched by that of the Communist armed forces, and that Her Majesty's Government's failure to provide four divisions in Europe, as originally promised in the Western European Union Treaty, is among the factors preventing the achievement of Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers in Europe's planned conventional strength, what steps he is now taking to provide forces sufficient to meet our treaty obligations.

The reductions in the strength of B.A.O.R. from four divisions to a force of the size represented by seven brigade groups were approved by Western European Union, in the knowledge of the views of SACEUR. We have no proposals at present for any changes in these force levels.

As the British forces in Germany are substantially below the strength arranged by treaty and in view of the Minister's somewhat bellicose emphasis on nuclear weapons in his speech to the Western European Union, can he reassure the House that the British Army in Germany can now cope with a conventional war with conventional weapons?

The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is, as I said in my original Answer, that the reduction of our forces to seven brigade groups was formally approved by Western European Union, which took the appropriate views of SACEUR before so doing. I have also said that we have no proposal at present for any changes in these force levels. Therefore, we are meeting our N.A.T.O. commitments.

Is it not clear that our treaty obligation is four divisions and that the Western European Union reduction was reluctant and temporary? At least, is it not clear that in view of the policy now being advocated by President Kennedy of a capacity to meet conventional war with conventional war, the necessity of our providing our original commitment of four divisions is plain? Is this being reconsidered?

As I have said, the original treaty obligation was formally and quite properly altered by W.E.U. through the existing and long-established machinery. As to the current doctrine of defence, I expect that hon. Members opposite will have read the reports of what was said by Mr. Gilpatric, the Deputy Defence Secretary, to the Press Conference in Washington on 6th June. He said:

"The current doctrine is that if N.A.T.O. forces were about to be overwhelmed by non-nuclear attack by Communist bloc countries, N.A.T.O. would respond with the use of nuclear arms.

Is it, then, the arrangement that we should have forces which are automatically overwhelmed?

The arrangement is that we shall have forces that conform to the pattern and doctrine laid down by SACEUR and N.A.T.O. That is the present position.

Was it not decided several years ago that, instead of having the formal divisions, we should constitute these brigade groups? Is it not just possible that seven brigade groups up to strength could be far more efficient and effective than seven formal divisions not up to strength?

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in his recollection, and that is what I have already said three times—that the change from a nominal four divisions to seven brigade groups was ratified and approved by N.A.T.O. I have just said that we have no proposals to make to change these force levels. I have also said that they meet the present requirements both as to the balance of conventional and nuclear weapons within them and as to their general disposition and make-up.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is no longer the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the British Army of the Rhine should be equipped to hold its own in a limited non-nuclear conflict in Europe.

There has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy that the British Army of the Rhine should be organised, equipped, trained and deployed to meet the N.A.T.O. military authorities' defence plans, which call for both nuclear and conventional capacity.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that notwithstanding that, his Western European Union speech was either misunderstood or was a very dangerous speech indeed, or both? Is he further aware that we cannot take seriously the Government's commitments in Berlin until he makes it perfectly clear that we do have adequate conventional forces in Germany?

I think we have adequate conventional forces. They also have a nuclear capacity as well, which is what N.A.T.O. asks them to have.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable opinion in this country that the best thing he can do with the British Army of the Rhine is to bring it home and put the soldiers on useful work? Is he also aware that if we go in for large sums on conventional weapons it only means taking hundreds of millions of money which should be spent on education, housing, and things that people need?

That is the hon. Gentleman's view. It is certainly not the view of the Government. I do not believe it is the view of the country, and I hope it is not the view of the Opposition as a whole.

Is not the Minister aware that the doctrine of the nuclear deterrent, which he has repeated here today, of using tactical nuclear weapons as part of that deterrent, loses in credibility anything which it may gain in strength?

Is the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience of Army matters, really saying that we should publicly state that tactical nuclear weapons which are part of the N.A.T.O. organisation should never be used?

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of his recent speech on 1st June to the Assembly of Western European Union, about the priority to be given to improving the effectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's conventional forces, he will increase the proportion of conventional to nuclear artillery deployed with brigade groups in the British Army of the Rhine.

In B.A.O.R. the nuclear artillery is held by corps and Army, and separately from the brigade groups, which contain only conventional artillery. I am satisfied that the overall balance between conventional and nuclear artillery in B.A.O.R. is about right.

Is the Minister aware that one of the main obstacles to British formations operating in a conventional rôle is the shortage of conventional artillery? Does he mean to change the balance from seven conventional and five nuclear artillery regiments? If he does not mean to change this balance, what on earth did he mean in the speech he made to the Western European Union?

I said in my speech that I thought the balance was about right, and I still think so.

Is it not a fact that there is no conventional divisional corps or army artillery in Germany? How can one meet Russian forces which are organised with that conventional artillery support unless one is going to use nuclear artillery?

As to the actual make-up of our forces, I would be only too happy if any hon. Members on either side of the House who wish to visit Germany—and I know many do—would go and look for themselves. They will find British forces well organised and well-equipped, following the correct N.A.T.O. make-up and ready to do the job which they are there to do. I consider that the balance of their forces and the make-up is just about right.

asked the Minister of Defence if he has been informed which American military bases in Britain are to be closed, and when.

asked the Minister of Defence what consultations he has had with the United States Government about the removal of certain United. States military bases from the United Kingdom.

Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the United States Government about this matter. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement shortly.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement made by a representative of the American Department that five of these American bases are to be closed? In view of the long range of missiles today, are they not all obsolete? Would not our people be a great deal safer without them?

The answer to the second part of that supplementary question is "No". The answer to the first part is that I cannot confirm or deny this until we have finished our discussions. I am anxious that we should make it plain as soon as we can, but I am not able to do that today.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is in touch, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that he is being consulted in the matter of which bases are to be closed, or is this a further example, one of many in recent years, when this country is regarded as a convenient stamping ground for other countries?

It means that the British Government are being consulted.

In those consultations, will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the one group of bases that clearly could now be closed, especially since Polaris, are the Thor bases? Will he arrange for those to go?

The right hon. Gentleman and I differ on this. The general view of both the American authorities and our own is that Thor makes a valid contribution to the deterrent and, therefore, should not be moved.

asked the Minister of Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Government since President Kennedy took office about Her Majesty's Government's proposals to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in case of war.

There has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy of replying to any would-be aggressor with the appropriate degree of force. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government are at present engaged with the United States Government and their other N.A.T.O. allies on a review of N.A.T.O. strategy.

Does that reply mean that the right hon. Gentleman made his speech to the Western European Union, in which he reiterated his policy of making the suicide threat to initiate nuclear war in Europe, without the consent of or prior consultation with the United States Government and in apparent contradiction with the latest pronouncements made by President Kennedy?

Regarding the speech I made to the Western European Union, I am gratified to see that it has received such a lot of attention. That speech does not differ from the Government's policy as set out in successive White Papers or, either, from the N.A.T.O. doctrine.

Did not the Minister in his reply, when he referred to the use of the appropriate degree of force, include the use of nuclear forces against conventional weapons? Can he say who decides what is the appropriate degree of force? Is it the commander on the spot?

This is a matter first for decision in the circumstances of the time and, secondly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman clearly knows, General Norstad has always made it plain that he would require political authorisation before initiating the use of nuclear weapons.

asked the Minister of Defence what measures, other than those now in operation, he proposes to adopt in order to bring the numbers of the three Services up to the strength required.

Recruiting prospects in the Royal Navy and the R.A.F. are broadly satisfactory. Recruitment for the Army is going better than in 1960, and I am confident that this improvement will continue. I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War about future action.

While I am reluctant to blame the right hon. Gentleman, because I know how difficult is the position, would he not agree that there has been some vacillation and some indecision? Is he aware that in another place a representative of the Government—I think a Cabinet Minister—said the other day that the Government had an alternative scheme in the event of failure to obtain the necessary number of volunteers? Can we be told something about this?

This is primarily—as my Answer made clear—an Army problem. The Navy and the Royal Air Force look to be able to meet their targets reasonably easily. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War set out clearly in his Estimates speech, firstly, the list of a great number of things which we were going to do and which he hoped would improve recruiting—and this is already happening—and, secondly, he made the proper observation that, of course, if we fail we must have some alternative plan. I have said today, and I believe this, that as things are going we shall succeed in meeting our target on the due date. That is what we must concentrate all our efforts upon.

Is the Minister aware that at the Royal Tournament, apart from the splendid show put on by the Royal Marines, the two exhibitions of the Royal Navy comprised one which was concerned with cutlass fighting and hornpipe dancing of the time of Nelson and the second was a field-gun exhibition of the time of the Boer War? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Navy that if they are to get more recruits they must put on something more up-to-date?

The hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly proper point, but it is equally fair to say that perhaps the most effective display was that of the Royal Marine Commando, which is still part of the Navy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that. This is a difficult problem, and it is my wish that on all these Service occasions we should try to show the Services as they are today, with modern weapons, doing a worth-while job. But it is equally fair to say—and I saw the Royal Tournament last night—that I think the balance this year was fairly and easily achieved, despite the cutlass drill, which drew one of the biggest rounds of applause.

One of the things that can be done, if the Army has greater difficulties relative to the other two Services in getting recruits, is the further integration of the tasks of the Service by which many of the cold war tasks can be performed by Royal Air Force regiments and by naval commandos. Perhaps this could be carried a good deal further?

I do not disagree with that at all. We are forming another Royal Marine Commando now. We are developing the Commando carrier concept. All these things will help to bear the burden. But none of this takes from the Army its proper long-term tasks, and it must make a success of its Regular recruiting to fulfil them.

asked the Minister of Defence whether the British troops going to Portugal will be taking part in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises or exercises arranged between his department and the Government of Portugal.

This exercise was arranged last January with our Portuguese N.A.T.O. allies who offered suitable territory in which elements of the Strategic Reserve and Transport Command could be trained in rapid air movement and deployment in realistic conditions. It is planned that it should take place early in July. I understand that the token contingents of Portuguese forces taking part will be drawn from forces assigned to N.A.T.O.

Does the Minister mean that since last January he has not reconsidered this in the light of the situation in Angola and the mounting objections that there are to Portugal and to her present policy? Does he not agree that there are a number of other territories—I have a list of them with me—within the same distance from this country offering the same kind of terrain in the land of other N.A.T.O. allies where our troops could be trained? Will the Minister not, therefore, consider countermanding the decision to send them to Portugal and opt for somewhere else where our troops could be trained?

I accept that this presents a difficulty. As to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about alternative territories, we have tried a great number of these. We have had one or two disappointments this year in one or two, which I will not mention. They are for understandable reasons. I must make this plain, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite see difficulties in this, but I have my difficulties, too.

I must first make it plain that this exercise does not imply that we agree with Portugal's policy in Africa. Our own approach to these colonial problems is quite different, as the Foreign Secretary recently made plain in Lisbon. Let us be clear about that. It is a military exercise, and it is a great convenience for which we are grateful to the Portuguese authorities to be able to train this large element of the Strategic Reserve in a hot and barren part of a country where the conditions are just right.

I must say one other word which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will understand, even if we differ; I am not doing my duty to the country if I do not see that the Strategic Reserve—which is the spearhead of our forces, the fire brigade that may be able to put out a small dangerous bush fire—is given the chance to exercise outside this country with Royal Air Force Transport Command and with realistic conditions.

That is why we wish to carry on with this exercise, which is an exercise for British troops. This is really only being done in Portugal because that seems to be the best place at the moment and the only available place where an exercise of this kind could take place. But it has no political connotations.

On a point of order. Before you move to the next Question, Mr. Speaker—

I am now on my feet. I should not be doing my duty if I did not renew my request that Answers, like supplementary questions, should be short, otherwise other hon. Members who have Questions on the Paper suffer.

I merely wish to ask whether the Minister is not aware that none of us is disputing the need to train forces outside Britain. What we are putting to the right hon. Gentleman is that they do not have to go to Portugal. It is not so much a matter of whether he is acquiescing in Portugal's policy—and the Minister will have seen the observation in The Times this morning—it is a question of other people, particularly Africans, thinking that he may be acquiescing and, since there are other territories that could be used, will he reconsider the matter?

Of course, I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not want to mislead him. I was careful to say what I did, and I hope that other countries in Africa will take note of this and of the fact—as I hope our N.A.T.O. allies will—that it is essential for N.A.T.O. purposes and for the peace of the world as a whole that our Strategic Reserve should be properly trained and exercised. I was and I still am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman chapter and verse about this if he wants it, although I should transgress again if I did so now There is at the moment no alternative means of carrying out this exercise in the time schedule that we have.

If we are at this point to move on to the next Question, I beg to give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that later on I shall seek to move a Motion on this matter.

asked the Minister of Defence under what terms facilities at Castlemartin are being made available to German forces.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement giving full details of the facilities now made available to German troops in this country.

Parties of German officers have visited both the range and the storage facilities that might be made available. We are now considering what help we can offer. As soon as a final decision is reached I will inform the House.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman has some idea of the implications involved? What sort of terms is he considering?

If it helps the hon. Gentleman, perhaps I can give a short guide. First, there will be storage facilities in various parts of the country. Second, it will be a limited requirement for practice firing at the Castlemartin range, which I believe is in his constituency. These are practice firings. They are not in any sense manoeuvres, and it is not a base of any kind.

asked the Minister of Defence how many North Atlantic Treaty Organisation troops have been sent to the United Kingdom for training during each of the past three years; from how many countries they came; and what proportion in each year were German.

In 1958–59, 1,866, of which 649 were German.

In 1959–60, 1,571, of which 355 were German.

In 1960–61, 1,468, of which 290 were German.

In each year they came from twelve N.A.T.O. countries.

How many German troops does the Minister expect in the current year, and what proportion of the total will they represent?

I cannot give those figures without notice. The hon. Gentleman will see from my Answer that very substantial numbers of German troops have already been here. If he will put down a Question about the current position, I shall be glad to answer it.

asked the Minister of Defence in view of the fact that the major threat to peace in Europe lies in the risk of limited conflict in Central Europe, what steps he is taking to strengthen those types of forces to deal with such a situation.

I do not accept the premises on which the hon. Gentleman's Question is based. But I must make it clear that the Government will continue to ensure that the British forces assigned to N.A.T.O. are supplied with, and trained in the use of, the most modern weapons and equipment.

Is the Minister aware that the recent statement seems to be moving against American policy and most modern policy that has progressed since the time when the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was in his office? Most of us consider that his present attitude is rather retrograde in this matter. Are we having a reversal of Government policy in so far as we are moving again towards the massive deterrent?

I should advise the hon. Gentleman to read the speech, part of which I quoted, by Mr. Gilpatric of the Defence Department in America, which, as I say, accords with British and American policy.

How many, if any, of our brigade groups in Germany are capable of operating independently of nuclear weapons?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is not in the public interest to give that sort of information, and I have no intention of doing so.

asked the Minister of Defence what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government concerning the future of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station at Fylingdales.

I have had no such discussions.

Although the future of these early warning stations is in some doubt with the advent of the missile-carrying submarine, does he appreciate that they are of immediate great importance to the defence of the Western world? Will he take all possible steps to settle these frequent distressing labour troubles and hasten their construction?

I agree. I understand that the construction at the moment is going reasonably well and I certainly hope it will continue. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. These are absolutely vital to the defence of the Western world.

asked the Minister of Defence what alterations he has ordered in the United Kingdom's defence dispositions as a result of the declaration of the President of Cyprus that bases in Cyprus would not be available for the performance of the United Kingdom's obligations inter alia under the Tripartite Declaration.

None, Sir.

Has the right hon. Gentleman observed Archbishop Makarios' statement that the Cyprus bases would not be available for use in operations in which the United Arab Republic was involved? Do not our obligations under the Tripartite Declaration with regard to Israel involve our use of those bases? Have no alternative arrangements been made, or has not the matter been considered?

I have seen Press reports of what Archbishop Makarios said. I think it important not to say anything at this point beyond the statement I have made; it would not be helpful either to him or to Her Majesty's Government.

Will my right hon. Friend be absolutely specific and say that Archbishop Makarios, the President of Cyprus, has absolutely no jurisdiction in these matters and his words are therefore entirely meaningless?

That is why I said, "None, Sir." We do not propose to make any changes in the sovereign areas, because our sovereignty remains.

Since the British Government in 1956 were responsible for tearing up the Tripartite Declaration, may that be the reason why Archbishop Makarios has followed their example?

That is quite another question.

asked the Minister of Defence what are the new commitments of British Armed Forces in an emergency situation in Berlin.

We recognise the obligations we assumed in Berlin at the end of the Second World War and we intend to stand by them. There is, therefore, no question of new commitments.

Has the Minister read the detailed and unrepudiated report in the New York Herald Tribune that there is a new plan which would include the seizure of the East German control post at Helmstedt? Does not he think that this type of military action might precipitate world war?

I am not responsible for what appears in American newspapers.

Bearing in mind that the British forces in Berlin are doing a very good job in difficult circumstances, will the Minister reassure the House that, in the event of an emergency situation developing, their supplies and communications are adequate?

I am very carefully looking into that. Perhaps I may repeat what I said in the West German Rathaus when I was there last week, that British forces will stay in West Berlin so long as they are necessary.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the unsuitability of the existing roads as a link route from A.449 and A.38 to the junction on B.4084 with M.5 under construction, he will take steps to ensure that the proposed Worcester northern link road is completed as soon as possible after the opening of the motorway.

We hope shortly to make the order establishing the line of this road. We will then invite the Worcestershire County Council as our agent authority to prepare the scheme to contract letting stage.

Can my hon. Friend give any information about timings? Is he aware that the effectiveness of the Birmingham—South Wales motorway will be very largely vitiated until this critical link, the Worcester northern link road, is completed? What is the Ministry's estimate for the commencing date for the northern link road and the completion of it, with the Worcester County Council as its main agents?

I regret that I cannot without notice given an estimate of the time. I can only refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend said to him in answer to a Question on 26th April last, which was that no firm date can be given at this stage.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to announce a starting date for the construction of a Tonbridge by-pass.

The Kent County Council is the highway authority for this road. I understand that it is still working on its proposals for the by-pass. When it submits an application for grant, we shall consider it, together with other schemes throughout the country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why the Kent County Council is at present held up in its plans is that it is still awaiting a reply from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture? Will my hon. Friend get in touch with his right hon. Friend and see whether he can hustle him on, since this is a matter of importance to my constituents, because Ton-bridge High Street is now just about the most congested thoroughfare in the country?

I was not aware of that. I will certainly look into it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any complaint about the congestion of traffic due to prolonged delays at the railway level crossing in the Boothferry Road, Goole; and what progress has been made in discussion of methods of improving the situation.

Yes, Sir. We have received two letters from the Goole Chamber of Commerce and Shipping. I am informed that the proposal for installing twin red flashing light road signals is still under discussion between the Goole Corporation, who are the highway authority, and the B.T.C.

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me how the installation of red flashing light signals will lead to trains stopping a shorter time at the level crossing on the main road? Is he not aware that at the present time the gates are closed across the main road for up to eight minutes at a time, and that this has been timed locally by specialists? As it is obvious that the platforms are not long enough to take the new longer trains, will he not get in touch with the British Transport Commission in order to get something done about keeping these gates closed for as short a time as possible?

These are, presumably, the reasons why the Goole Corporation has taken up the matter with the British Transport Commission. If there is anything I can do to help, I will certainly be glad to do it, but this is a matter for the Goole Corporation and the British Transport Commission, and not for my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet reached any conclusion from the census of traffic over Boothferry Bridge taken last October; and what action he proposes to take to relieve congestion on this main route between the West Riding and Hull.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has to make for the relief of traffic congestion in the area of the Boothferry Bridge.

The conclusion we have reached from the census is that the advantages of using the abandoned Barnsley-Hull railway track for a new road between Howden and the Great North Road would not be commensurate with the cost, and would offer only limited relief to the route via Boothferry Bridge. In any case, the British Transport Commission have now decided to withhold negotiations for disposal of the abandoned track because they may want it for the supply of coal by rail to a new power station to be built in the area. Our future plans will therefore be based on the comprehensive improvement of the present Doncaster-Howden trunk road via Boothferry Bridge.

Can the hon. Gentleman indicate when these plans are going to be looked at again, because this census has taken him a considerable time to consider? He may remember that on 15th March he said that the Ministry were about to announce a decision, and it is now three months since then?

Improvements to existing trunk roads have a very high place in our order of priorities, but I am afraid it is too soon for me to say when they can be put in hand.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that new information, may I ask him if he can give an assurance that the use of part of the northern section of the disused railway will be considered possibly as a by-pass for Howden? Will he give further urgent consideration to the need for a widening or replacement of the existing Boothferry Bridge?

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, this point will be examined when we know for certain whether the British Transport Commission will be able to make that particular section of track available. In regard to the reconstruction or replacement of Boothferry Bridge, my hon. Friend will realise that it will be a very expensive undertaking. We have formulated no specific scheme, but we will examine the point in the light of the main decision which I have announced today.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will replace the pedestrian crossing which used to exist in Harrow Road, Wembley, at the junction of Maybank Avenue and Elms Lane.

No difficulties to pedestrians crossing Harrow Road at this junction have been brought to our notice, nor, I understand, to the notice of the Wembley Borough Council.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no pedestrian crossing on this road for about three-quarters of a mile until it reaches the junction with Watford Road? Does he not think that that is rather a long distance, particularly in view of the heavy traffic in the early morning rush hours, and that it is a very busy road?

The absence of a crossing on a particular stretch of road does not necessarily mean that one is required. One has to consider the volume of traffic and of pedestrians, and so far we have had no evidence—unless my hon. Friend has some—that a crossing is needed at this particular point.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the construction of the St. Neots Bridge will be included in the 1961–62 programme.

No, Sir. Preparation of the scheme is continuing. We hope shortly to make the necessary Order, but I am not yet able to give a starting date.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now four years since this bridge started to fall into the river, that the situation locally is causing great inconvenience to the people of St. Neots: and that the delay in crossing the bridge at peak hours in summer may be as much as half an hour or more? Will he see that a date is fixed as soon as possible for this work to go forward?

We know that there are certain difficulties about this bridge, though I doubt whether they are as serious as my hon. Friend made out. We will certainly give it the highest priority we can compatible with the claims of other equally important trunk road projects in other parts of the country.

asked the Minister of Transport what consultations he has had with the Canadian Minister of Transport about the modification of the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement by which the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River system is to be treated as Canadian inland waters; and if he will make a statement.

A proposal to reserve domestic Canadian trade in the Great Lakes and part of the St. Lawrence to Canadian registered vessels was announced by the Canadian Minister of Transport on 12th May, 1961. The proposal would entail a variation of the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement. A formal proposal to that effect has just been received from the Canadian Government and is being examined. In the meantime, officials of the United Kingdom have discussed the matter with Canadian officials in London and in Ottawa.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a bloc of this nature in the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes would do great damage to this country because of our dependence on exports? Does he propose to make any representations to the Canadian Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that, apart from any proposed agreement, it is very difficult indeed for Britain to carry on any trade at the moment in that part of the Western world?

The formal proposal was received only on 9th June, five days ago. Immediately, I got in touch with the General Council of British Shipping to assess the situation and see what the financial loss and the implications or repercussions for this country may be. I must await the outcome of that inquiry.

In view of this piece of discrimination which has just been disclosed, will my right hon. Friend say whether we impose similar restrictions on Canadian ships in British waters?

No, Sir, we do not. In this country, our coasting trade is open freely to ships of all flags, which is not so in this recent proposal from Canada.

Will the Minister assure the House, since this is a matter of great importance, that we shall have a chance of discussing it further? Since he speaks about new plans the implications of which he is examining, will he let us know exactly what they are and ensure that the House has an opportunity of discussing them before anything is finalised?

The question of time for discussion in the House is not for me but for the Leader of the House. The formal proposals were received only five days ago, so I do not think that the House can expect me to pronounce on them now.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the tanker "Naess Sovereign", 88,500 tons, registered in London, entered service this year and a sister ship of the same size is to be launched in October; and which ports in this country are capable of receiving these vessels through their entrance locks.

Yes, Sir. These and still bigger vessels can be received at Milford Haven and Finnart.

Is the Minister aware that this situation constitutes a grave reproach to and reflection upon the British transport industry in that we have ships being constructed now which cannot find a port in this country? [HON. MEMBERS: "He said that they can."] There are two ships being constructed at present of 88,000 tons and 122 ft. beam. There is not a port in this country to take them. Is it not a reflection upon the greatest maritime nation in the world that such ships are made to remain in the Eastern hemisphere because they cannot find a port in the Western hemisphere?

I said that there were two ports which could receive vessels of up to 100,000 deadweight tons, Milford Haven and Finnart, so the hon. Gentleman is not quite right in his facts.

What about the 122 ft. beam?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down about that. It is different from the Question on the Order Paper.

Is this not an important matter which the Minister ought to keep in mind? Where can these ships be dry-docked? Where can they receive a proper overhaul in this country? Is it not high time that the Ministry of Transport took up a ten-year-old report and started constructing some dry docks to take vessels of this sort?

I am sure that the hon. Member knows as well as everyone else in the House that the particular ship which is the subject of the Question can be dry-docked at King George V dock at Southampton and the Cammell Laird No. 5 dock at Birkenhead which is about to be completed.

Are there not two quite separate points here, first, that the economics of ships of this size have not altogether been proved yet, and, second, that because of the perhaps, inevitable increase in the size of ships up to something in the neighbourhood of the figures we are considering, there is need to improve the repair facilities in this country, which calls for another look at the Finance Bill?

With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, that is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, of course, deals with the Finance Bill, and not me. With regard to the first part, as I have said, in this country we have docks which can cope with these ships.

Give us the names of the ports.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement with regard to the building of a nuclear-powered ship for commercial purposes.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement about the construction of a nuclear-propelled merchant ship.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the development of a nuclear-powered tanker and the award of a contract for its construction.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects Britain's first nuclear-propelled merchant ship to be launched; and how many foreign owned nuclear-propelled merchant vessels will be in service by this date.

As regards a British nuclear-powered merchant ship, I cannot yet add to the Answers I gave hon. Members on 7th June. The only foreign nuclear merchant ships now built or building are the United States' merchant ship "Savannah" and the Russian icebreaker "Lenin". So far as I am aware, no decisions to build any others have been taken.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that he has gone on giving the answer to the House of Commons that he would be in a position to give us a statement quite shortly? Is he aware that he has made that statement, I should think, for the last three months? Can I have a firm assurance on what date he would like me and my colleagues to put down a Question, because we feel that the time has come that we ought to be able to give a proper lead in this matter?

I do not think I have ever used the words which the hon. Lady attributed to me. The wands I used were very carefully selected, and they were that I would give the answer as soon as possible. The hon. Lady misses the whole point. The question is whether this is the best use of our limited resources and whether we should get the best value for money in this country by doing it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industries affected are thoroughly fed up with him and wish that he would give up his job? Is he also aware that this is a matter on which a decision has to be taken, and that it is now believed that the right hon. Gentleman is awaiting a decision by certain European countries which are discussing this matter? If that is so, does he realise that it is thoroughly unsatisfactory and that we must take the initiative in this field?

With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. With regard to the first part, I should be very grateful if he would give me the names of the industries which are completely fad up, when I will get in touch with them and convey to them the hon. Gentleman's words.

Will the Minister remember that on 1st March he told the House that he would give the answer to the question in the fairly near future? Those were his very words. Will he tell us what he means by "the fairly near future"? In view of the fact that tenders were called for in 1959, what possible excuse can there be for holding up the award of the contract right up to the middle of this year, or maybe later?

This is an entirely new field of work. The tenders may have been called for at that time, but they were not received until fairly recently. I repeat to the House that I think that here we should get the right decision, and not necessarily a quick decision.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the important thing here is that we should be able to develop something of a commercially applicable nature, but, if it is decided as a prestige venture, then it would be better to switch the money from the Cunard to nuclear-powered ships?

I will not go into the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. With regard to the first part, I agree with him. The real point of nuclear power in ships is that, to be effective, it must be economic.

On a point of order. May I ask whether there has been an alteration? Why is it that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who is responsible for shipping and shipbuilding does not answer?

He is fed up.

Why is the Minister answering?

It is not very clear to me what point of order or procedure arises.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make the fitting of direction indicators on all road vehicles compulsory.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) on 7th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

I expected that that might be my right hon. Friend's reply, so I refreshed my mind on the Answer. I find that it is very similar to an Answer I received in 1959 and again in 1960. Will my right hon. Friend accelerate the process of reaching agreement on this matter?

I am glad that my hon. Friend found the Answer satisfactory.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce a regulation to prohibit the use of trunk roads by heavy goods vehicles between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sundays during the period of British Summer Time, in order to relieve congestion on the roads.

No, Sir. The movement of heavy goods vehicles is much less on Sundays than on other days. Its total prohibition would have a serious effect upon supplies. I do however ask hauliers to limit traffic on summer weekends.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this system works perfectly well in Western Europe, particularly in Western Germany and Holland? Will not he have another look at the matter?

The heavy traffic on Sundays is very much less than on other days. From Monday to Friday, it averages 20 million vehicle miles, on Saturdays 9 million vehicle miles, and on Sundays 3 million vehicle miles, so I think that we are dealing with the weekend traffic pretty well.

Has the Minister ever had to drive behind a giant transformer or an aeroplane being carted along the Great North Road on a Sunday?

I have travelled behind a transformer but never behind an aeroplane.