asked the Minister of Defence what plans he has for the future of the Singapore base on the establishment of the Malaysian Federation; and whether he will give an assurance that there will be no reduction in either the extent of the base, nor in the number of locally entered employees.

The recent joint statement provided for the United Kingdom to continue to maintain bases at Singapore for the purpose of assisting in the defence of Malaysia, and for Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia.

On a point of order. On whose behalf is the Secretary of State for Air speaking?

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister of Defence to give very careful thought to this problem before he decides on reductions, because of the difficulty of providing these facilities elsewhere and also because of the aspect of local employment?

I assure my hon. Friend that there is no immediate proposal for reduction, but obviously I cannot guarantee what will happen in the future. From time to time there may be changes up or down.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Agreement, in so far as it dealt with the use of Singapore for S.E.A.T.O. purposes, was entirely vague and extremely unsatisfactory? Is he aware that no one knows whether it will be possible to use this base for S.E.A.T.O. purposes without the permission of the Government of the Malaysian Federation? Is it wise in these circumstances to tie up troops for that purpose in Singapore?

I do not think there is anything vague about the Agreement. I refer the hon. Gentleman to it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that there will be continued employment of the estimated 5,000 dedicated Chinese Communists whose services are so essential to this most invaluable cold war base?

I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question was asked more with a view to making a point than eliciting information.

asked the Minister of Defence (1) if he is satisfied that enough officers, ratings and civilians are employed in the intelligence sections of the Service Departments; and if he will make a statement;

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great tendency for the intelligence departments to be increased rather than decreased? Is it not time that there was a measure of integration betwen the three Services and J.I.B. in order to try to reduce a considerable overhead in our Defence Estimates for the future?

The information the Government get is pretty good and the co-ordination is pretty good. I would hesitate to tamper with the, present situation.

asked the Minister of Defence how many members of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, respectively, were born in Southern Ireland, are citizens of other Commonwealth countries or are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, other than United Kingdom citizens.

I have been asked to reply.

Would not the information, if available, show a very impressive picture indeed? Has the Minister taken into account the psychological effects of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill on recruitment?

I should be the last to to underrate the importance of recruitment from the Commonwealth or Eire into the Armed Forces, but it would be very difficult to get the detailed information because, of course, all those who are born in Eire or in the Commonwealth countries are not necessarily citizens of those countries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large sums are being spent by the Ministry of Defence on advertising for recruits in the United Kingdom? Is anything being spent on advertising for recruits throughout the Commonwealth, where they are very much available?

There are certain agreements with Commonwealth countries whereby we do not, as it were, poach on their ground. I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman the details at the moment, but if he will put down a Question I will look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Defence how many decorations, excluding campaign stars, were awarded to persons born in Southern Ireland, to citizens of other Commonwealth countries and to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies other than United Kingdom citizens, respectively, who served in the Armed Forces of the Crown during the 1939–45 war.

I have been asked to reply.

Would not the picture of the Commonwealth contribution be outstanding? Did the Minister of Defence make representations along these lines to the Home Secretary at the time when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was drafted?

More than 100,000 persons were recipients of honours and decorations, and I have no doubt that a high proportion of them came from Commonwealth countries. Of course, this is a factor which the Government have very much in mind in all these matters. I cannot say more than that.

asked the Minister of Defence what new arrangements are being made to use Woomera rocket range for testing atomic devices.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been some public concern, both here and in Australia, at the visit paid some weeks ago by General Staff Colonel Hancock from the War Office and Major Stoner of the Joint Services Liaison Staff to the Woomera rocket range, to Maralinga and also to the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury, near Adelaide? In order to allay the fears that have been expressed in the Press about these visits, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no intention of preparing for fresh atomic tests to take place at the Woomera rocket range?

I think that the answer I gave just now should be quite sufficient assurance It could hardly have been more categorical than "None, Sir".

asked the Minister of Defence what new proposals he has for providing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and the United States and German Governments with facilities for military, naval and air training in Great Britain.

I have been asked to reply.

Can the Minister assure us that if there are any new proposals local authorities will be consulted before anything like this is established in their areas and, if there are no new proposals, will he take some of the old bases away?

There is always adequate consultation. The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No, Sir".

asked the Minister of Defence why Royal Air Force V-bombers based on Singapore are being exercised for the contingency of a war with China.

I have been asked to reply.

Would the right hon. Gentleman reply to the Question, which was why they are being trained for the contingency of a war with China? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a war with China would in all probability be started under S.E.A.T.O. by United States policy, such as intervening in the internal affairs of Vietnam with which this country does not agree, and will he give an assurance that we will not be involved in war for such policies?

Visits of V-bombers to Singapore are purely meant to give the maximum training in the greatest variety of climatic and geographical conditions.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this unfortunately worded Question—

The hon. Member cannot ask the Minister to express an opinion on an hon. Member's Question.

In view of the feeling in China that there may be trouble caused from the West, and since this country has no intention of conducting a war with China, is not this a most unfortunately worded Question?

The hon. Member does not follow. The feeling in China does not alter the rules of the House. One of the first rules about Questions is that hon. Members cannot ask a Minister for an expression of opinion.

asked the Minister of Defence what decision has been made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation about the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Nuclear Authority.

I have been asked to reply.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pressure exerted by Herr Strauss, the Federal German Minister of Defence, on General Norstad and N.A.T.O. for the purpose of creating this authority so that the West German Government can gain control of nuclear weapons? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of that? Does he not read the newspapers? Is he not aware of what goes on in N.A.T.O.?

Under Protocol 3 of the Brussels Treaty of 1954 the Federal Republic undertook not to manufacture nuclear weapons in their territory. I know of no proposals to vary this undertaking. As to control, no proposals have been made for the distribution of nuclear weapons systems to the Federal Army except under conditions where SACEUR would obtain control and where the United States personnel would have the final custodianship of the weapons.

Herr Strauss has explicitly stated that he wants not only the provision of nuclear weapons made by N.A.T.O., perhaps from American sources, but that he also wants complete control of the warheads. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain what our representative at N.A.T.O. is doing about it?

When we received the right hon. Gentleman's Question we of course made inquiries, but we are not aware of the facts that he has stated.

Complete evasion.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will list the six highest positions in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation held by German officers; if he will state the number and percentage of German generals in the senior North Atlantic Treaty Organisation staffs; and if he will oppose further appointments of this kind.

I have been asked to reply.

At the top level is it not more than 6·3 per cent.? Did not these men—Heusinger, von Speidel and Wagner—play leading parts in planning Hitler's aggression, and even worse? Far from integrating these men in N.A.T.O., are they not being given control of it through these commanding positions?

When the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer he will see that it fits exactly his Question. The Federal Republic is making an increasingly large contribution to N.A.T.O. forces, and it is only reasonable that a share of N.A.T.O. command and staff appointments should be filled by German officers. Regarding the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that after the plot against Hitler's life both Heusinger and von Speidel spent the rest of the war in the hands of the Gestapo.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if N.A.T.O. is to accept twelve divisions of German troops then obviously that includes general officers as well as privates?

indicated assent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the list a note of the high-ranking German officers in charge of the East German Army?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to put a Question to the Foreign Secretary about that.

asked the Minister of Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding control by the Organisation of nuclear weapons and warheads.

I have been asked to reply.

But if atomic weapons are given, directly or indirectly, to N.A.T.O., is not that a concealed way of giving them to the German generals, since they are now more and more becoming a dominant force?

There are no plans or proposals for handing over any nuclear warheads or bombs to the German forces. Where they would be equipped under N.A.T.O. arrangements with a nuclear delivery system, the weapons would remain under the direct control of General Norstad and the warheads would be in United States custody.

If it comes to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman and of his colleague the Minister of Defence that Herr Strauss has made a proposal for the control not only of the weapons but of the warheads, will it be resisted by our representative at N.A.T.O.?

That is a different question. If the information had been different, I would, of course, have told the House. What the right hon. Gentleman is asking is a hypothetical question.

In the case of British troops, for example, nuclear warheads, although not under British control, are allocated to British formations. Can the Minister say whether the position is the same with the German formations?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question about that.

Why does the Ministry of Defence appear to be unaware of fresh proposals which are being strongly pressed by the German Government and which are known to everybody who reads the newspapers but which, apparently, the Ministry of Defence has not heard about?

The hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, a close student of the newspapers, but there are other channels of information as well.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will give an assurance that compulsory military service will not be restored, nor will National Service men be used, to help the Governments of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Central Treaty Organisation and South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, to put down internal subversion in their territories.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 18th October, the Lord Privy Seal told the House that

"the presence of Western troops in Western Germany is … a very important guarantee against internal subversion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1961; Vol. 646, c. 227.]

It seems to me that that has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper, but I am glad that the hon. Member has got it off his chest.

asked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to secure better integration between Civil Defence forces and the Armed Services, with a view to achieving greater efficiency; and if he will make a statement.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Minister aware that there is little evidence of such cooperation in actual practice? Does he not agree that in view of the comprehensive nature of civil defence duties and obligations, there is a strong and striking case, not merely for co-operation and understanding, but for a greater degree of integration between the Services, on the one hand, and the admirable civil defence workers, on the other hand?

If the hon. Member has any specific points in mind, he should write to my right hon. Friend. I should like to reassure him, however, on the points he raised originally. We are doing everything possible and we are working further for the aim of closer co-operation between the military and the civil authorities in this direction.

Has the Secretary of State considered bringing all civil defence under the command of the Territorial Army? This proposal has been put forward and it seems to make sense.

What would happen on the outbreak of hostilities would be that the military commander-in-chief of United Kingdom land forces would take charge of the whole operation.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that the efficiency of the civil defence organisation is adequate to deal with an emergency which might arise? Would it not be better to bring in as many properly-trained personnel as possible?

That is more a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary than for me. I have dealt with the military co-operation side of the Question.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his official conversation last week with Mr. Macnamara, the American Secretary for Defence.

I have been asked to reply.

Can the Minister assure us that the Government will resist any proposals by Mr. Macnamara for increased expenditure by this country?

That raises another issue. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to put down another Question about it.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what effect the reorganisation of Chatham Dockyard has had upon efficiency and the costs of production.

It is too early yet to judge how great the improvement will be. The process of reorganisation is not yet complete and in any case it is bound initially to cause some disturbance to production. Within the compass of the Question and Answer I cannot deal adequately with all the factors involved; and I am writing more fully to my hon. Friend.

In thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can estimate when the reorganisation is likely to be completed?

It is too early yet to say.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why he has refused to make an increase of £1 per week awarded by the Industrial Court to 2,364 Admiralty employees.

The increase of £1 a week which the Industrial Court published on 15th September has been accepted.

That is a very disappointing Answer. Can the Minister tell us how these men differ from those in the fire services and why what is good enough for the fire services does not apply to them? Is he aware that in terms of common honesty and dealing with one's obligation to employees, we had expected rather better of the Admiralty?

I cannot answer for the fire services, but I should like to direct the hon. and learned Member's attention to the statement made on 23rd October by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the said:

"What the Government have done is to reserve to themselves the decision as to the date when any increases agreed or awarded should be put into effect."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1961; Vol. 646, c. 623.]

Can my hon. Friend say whether there have been any other recent increases for this group of employees?

In October, 1960, there was an increase of 5s. a week; in April, 1961, an increase of 3s. a week; and then there is this last increase of 8s. a week back-dated to October, 1960.

Is the Minister aware that on Monday this week, I was told from the Government Front Bench that the responsibility for wage negotiations was between the employers and the workers' representatives? How is it that Government Departments now interfere with the decisions of workmen and employers when they come to a decision, as they have done in the Industrial Court?

That is why, in my first supplementary answer, I quoted the fact that we have accepted the award and have only taken powers to delay its implementation.[Interruption.] It is not a laughing matter. The economic and future trading position of the nation depends upon these issues. Therefore, they are extremely important. We have only taken power to delay the implementation of the award until the wage pause ceases, when the employees will get these increases.

Is the Minister saying that at the end of the pay pause, he will be willing to pay this increase from the date of the arbitration award, which has been the normal practice for 40 years? If he is not saying that, are we to take it that after a decade of Conservative government our economy is is such a state that we cannot afford to pay an increase like this and that we are ready to wreck arbitration agreements of 40 years' standing and a procedure that has stood the test of time? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is telling us?

No, Sir.

I asked a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker—

I do not know quite what is happening. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not raising a point of order.

I think there will be an opportunity to discuss these things on Monday as far as I can judge the business.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order? I was not intending to do so, but I should now like to raise one. I put—[Interruption.]—and I appeal to you for your protection, Mr. Speaker—a perfectly fair question to the Minister about whether he proposed to pay the increase to the men from the date on which the arbitration award was given. The reply which I got from the Minister was put into his mouth by a former Civil Lord of thirty years ago. There is more feeling in the Civil Service and among industrial employees about these matters than I have ever known. We are entitled to have fair replies from the Minister on these important questions.

I am afraid I do not discover the point of order.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will now publish the result of the investigation recently put in hand concerning the application of Polaris to Her Majesty's submarines; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 6th December.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply and his previous reply will give no satisfaction to those of us who are interested in this important matter? Does he appreciate that the Soviet Navy, as well as the United States Navy, has more than one type of missile-firing submarine at sea already? Does he not think it disgraceful that in this matter the Royal Navy has made no progress that is evident to the House?

It is not true that we have made no progress. We are building two nuclear submarines and we are also studying carefully whether it would be possible at some time in the future, if Government policy so desires, to carry Polaris missiles in nuclear submarines.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that air-conditioning has not been incorporated in the barrack blocks in Hong Kong now under construction; and if he will ensure that in any future design for barrack blocks, in tropical countries, such air-conditioning will be incorporated.

Air conditioning is provided in new construction at Aden and Bahrein. The need for air conditioning in other areas is being reviewed by all three Services. The barrack blocks in Honk Kong to which my hon. Friend refers are being built to tropical scales which gives each man 35 per cent. more space than he would have in an air conditioned building.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I appreciate that this must be agreed first between the three Services and that later, no doubt, the Treasury must be persuaded? Surely, however, the financial saving resulting from reducing living space by 35 per cent. would more than offset the cost of air conditioning. Would not the efficiency and the contentment of Service men be greatly increased if they were able to eat, and especially sleep, in air-conditioned quarters?

Those are exactly the considerations which we are taking into account in the review.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many nuclear physicists are employed at the Yarrow Research Establishment on marine nuclear propulsion.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what research work is being carried out by his research agencies on marine nuclear propulsion; and how many nuclear physicists are employed by his research agencies.

The figures requested would provide a useful guide to the amount of research and development effort we are devoting to this aspect of naval research. I cannot therefore believe it is in the public interest to give them.

Has the Minister any intention of adding to the number? Does he propose to make a bigger contribution to ensure the maximum progress in this sphere of development, which is badly needed in Britain?

The number of nuclear physicists at Y.A.R.D. about which the hon. Member asks is not really a matter which we dictate. As long as Y.A.R.D. undertakes the programme which we ask it to undertake, it is for Y.A.R.D. itself to distribute its personnel between the specialist and scientific branches. Our needs in this direction are being fully met.

Would not the Minister agree that, with shipbuilding capacity now in excess of demand and with the steel industry working below full demand, it would be advisable to concentrate more scientists and nuclear physicists on the development of the propulsion of hulls by nuclear power, because the physical resources are now available which we have not had for 15 years? Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to impress upon the shipbuilding industry and on his right hon. Friends the need to devote more of our physical resources to the evolution and development of nuclear propulsion, so that Britain may regain its position in the mercantile world?

We recognise the importance of all forms of research and development in the Navy. We are allocating a large slice of the Navy Vote to research and development. I will certainly bear in mind the points that hon. Member has made.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what plans he has for the development of nuclear-powered warships, and, in particular, aircraft carriers; and what information he has sought, when studying this matter, regarding United States experience with the aircraft carrier "Enterprise".

The Admiralty has no plans for the development of nuclear-powered warships, other than submarines, although research into nuclear propulsion for surface ships is continuing. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it would give satisfaction to Great Britain, and, indeed, to many of our allies, if some of our ships with nuclear reactors could be sailing the world? Can he tell me why it should rest in the hands of the United States of America to demonstrate the results of their reactors? Have we not got better reactors and better ships? How long is it going to take us before we can do something? Is my hon. Friend aware that at one time we were told that it would not be safe to have a ship with a nuclear reactor sailing the world? Yet it seems to be safe for Americans, and so it could be safe for us. Let us get on with it.

It is not a question of safety but a question of getting value for money and the most ships for the Fleet at sea. We can get better value because the capital costs and fuel costs and refitting costs of these surface ships are many times more than the costs for conventional ships.

Does my hon. Friend foresee the embarrassment which is going to be caused to him and his Department by the fact that by the time these two nuclear submarines get to sea all the ratings in the submarines will be chief petty officers?

I think that that is a very good advertisement for the rate of promotion in the Navy.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what was the result of the Board of Inquiry set up by the Admiralty to look into the use of naval signal rockets at a Guy Fawkes party at Chatham on 4th November.

The Board of Inquiry has reported that this was a private party organised by a number of officers of H.M.S. "Pembroke". It has been established that a number of Service signal rockets and other fireworks were improperly used they have since been fully paid for.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the biggest and possibly the most painful rocket from this incident is the reprimand which has been levelled at the officer concerned who, no doubt, will have to pay from his own pocket, and so would he give an undertaking that the result of this exuberance will not be shown on his records?

Why not?

No. I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking. What I can say is that if the officer is good enough he can live this reprimand down, believe that a number of Sea Lords have eventually got to the Board of Admiralty after receiving reprimands of this sort. So the reprimand can be lived down if one is good enough.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what assistance was rendered by Her Majesty's Navy in the making of a colour film to advertise a brand of cigarettes.

As I told the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 13th November, these advertising films depict routine naval activities. No special facilities are provided so that there is no cost to Navy Votes.

But is it not really undesirable that this should happen? This particular film, a coloured film, appeared to be authentic Navy until we got the pay-off line at the end and found that the Navy was selling cigarettes. At least, that was the appearance. Surely it is undesirable and quite contrary to the dignity of a great Service?

The hon. Gentleman refers to a film made, I think, prior to the end of 1959. Since that time we have changed the procedure, and now the company which makes these films does not show officers or ratings smoking cigarettes. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to see these films—I saw them myself last week—I should be very glad to display them in the Grand Committee Room.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will give general instructions to his Department to settle debts as promptly as possible, and, in particular, to pay forthwith the balance owed to Messrs. F. R. Bartlett, of Yeovil, which has been outstanding for an excessive length of time.

I can assure my hon. Friend that we always do our best to pay contractors' bills promptly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in some respects his information conflicts with information which I have? Will he appoint an official of his Department, with adequate authority to make a decision, to see this firm and to get the thing settled? For far too long letters have gone unanswered. They have been written to Yeovil and then been referred to Devonport, and from Devonport have been referred to Portland, and from Portland to Plymouth. This sort of thing is really very bad, and it is not the first time that this firm has had this unhappy experience.

My noble Friend and I are just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to get the matter settled. Perhaps he could come to see us and meet our experts and try to get it settled once for all.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the aircraft carrier building programme for the Royal Navy.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been made concerning the replacement of the existing fleet of aircraft carriers.

I have nothing to add to my Answer of 12th July to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). No decision has yet been taken about aircraft carrier replacements.

In thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, I should like to ask him if, in view of the severe recession at the moment in the shipbuilding industry and also in view of the falling number of British bases overseas, he will expedite the consideration of the replacement of our aircraft carriers.

We are certainly considering replacement, but there is no need to make a decision just yet awhile.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House when this decision is made, in view of the very enormous cost involved in this?

I note that.

When he takes the decision to start replacing the aircraft carriers in the Fleet, will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that in Scotland we have some of the largest berths in Europe for building and launching very large ships?

Yes, and we shall also bear in mind that there are £24 million worth of naval ships being built on Clydeside just now; that there have been £27 million worth built in the last ten years in Ulster, and that there are rival claims from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) as well.

Hear, hear.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what further steps have been taken in the provision of new living accommodation for the artificer apprentices at H.M.S. "Caledonia".

The designing of this accommodation has been proceeding as planned, and is making good progress.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he intends now to keep his promise to proceed to rebuild all this accommodation next year?

I see no reason to change the forecast which I gave earlier this year.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement on the Anglo-Spanish naval exercise in the Mediterranean from 11th December to 19th December.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the proposed joint naval manoeuvres to be held between 11th and 19th December involving British and Spanish naval forces.

This exercise which started in Malta on Monday is the third in a series of Anglo-Spanish exercises held annually since 1959. It is similar in character to last year's exercise which was mentioned in this year's Explanatory Statement.

May I ask the Civil Lord this? Is it not true that normally this country carries on exercises with allies and not with people who are enemies of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—who are pro-Nazi, pro-Fascist, like the Franco Government? Is it not an astonishing thing that his own office, when the first announcement of this exercise appeared in the Press, knew nothing at all about it? Is it not astonishing that the information was given by the Commander in Chief in the Mediterranean? Is this a back-door way the Government are using to get Franco Spain into N.A.T.O.? Is that the purpose of this exercise?

There are a lot of supplementary questions there. On the first point, my office knew it as one of a series of three exercises. The previous announcements came from the Commander in Chief at Malta. There is nothing unusual about that. The exercise is a bilateral one. Certainly it is in no way concerned with N.A.T.O. These exercises should be of benefit to the Royal Navy, and follow the Government's policy of maintaining contact with the navies of countries with which we have normal diplomatic relations. For example, there was an exercise with the Yugoslav navy a few years ago. We may well do so again.

Is the Civil Lord aware that the Spanish Captain Pollanco has publicly declared his support for Franco's claims to Gibraltar? Is it not a very dangerous exercise to train potential aggressors against British territory? Is the Civil Lord further aware that the same Spanish captain justified the use of German U-boats in Spanish, waters during the last war and justified the use of U-boats against British troopships in Freetown Harbour which resulted in the loss of thousands of British soldiers and sailors? Is not this enough for those dead people to turn over in their graves in disgust?

I am sorry, but I cannot be responsible for certain statements made by Spanish personnel. I should have thought it extremely unlikely that Spanish ships would be likely to make an assault on the Rock of Gibraltar. I think that we are enlarging the area of international understanding by exercises of this sort.

Is it not clear that if the British and Spanish navies exercise together the Spanish captain to whom the hon. Member opposite referred will be left in no doubt as to the folly of any attempt to acquire Gibraltar?

Will the hon. Gentleman see that there is as much fraternising as possible between the British and Spanish forces in order to ensure that British officers and ratings learn all they can about the principles of their Fascist allies and why they decided to support Hitler and Mussolini?

But they did not.

I think that it is a mistake to try to drag the Royal Navy into the political arena. As I made clear, we exercise with the navies of countries with which we have normal diplomatic relations. There was no row over the exercise with the Yugoslav navy, and we also announced that.

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his twice given answer about Yugoslavia? Does he think it right to put on terms of parity Marshal Tito, who fought on our side in the last war very courageously against the Germans, and General Franco who harboured spies at La Linea to the extent that we had to go into Gibraltar after dark and get out before daylight in order that reports should not get back to the Germans? Will he please not put these two countries on a par in this way?

It is not for me "to try to draw distinctions between two such great men".

On a point of order. May I give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall apply to you at the end of Questions for permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss this?

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what warships were present at the opening of Lord Nelson's Dockyard at Antigua; and by whom the Royal Navy was represented.

The Senior Naval Officer, West Indies, was to have been present with the ships H.M.S. "Troubridge" and H.M.S. "Vidal" at the reopening of the Dockyard at Antigua on 14th November. They were, however, diverted to emergency hurricane relief work at British Honduras and were thus unable to attend. The Board of Admiralty sent a message of best wishes on the day, regretting that circumstances prevented the presence of Her Majesty's ships.

While appreciating the reason for the absence of Her Majesty's ships, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that American and Canadian ships were present and that British onlookers regretted the fact that there was no senior Naval officer there? Would it not have been right in the circumstances to have flown out there, perhaps, a Sea Lord from England?

I think that in the circumstances we were obliged to give absolute priority to the relief of Belize and the hardship which was being suffered there, and to let that override one's natural desire to attend such an important function.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the immense dollar-earning capacity of this particular tourist attraction, and its tremendous importance to the West Indies, and see if the Navy can give it a fillip?

asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking in connection with pensions for Polish and other foreign personnel, who fought from this country during the war, for whom he has retained responsibility.

Since the war, successive administrations have felt unable to agree that these officers and men should be awarded pensions for which they did not qualify under British Service rules. I regret I can see no grounds for changing that policy now.

Has my right hon. Friend had any further representations on this matter recently? Does he really think that these men who gave so much in the cause of freedom have had a fair deal?

I have had approaches, particularly an approach to support a charity to this end, in the recent past, and we gave it some consideration. As to whether these gallant men have been treated fairly, that is a matter on which I should not like to pronounce. I do not know that one can treat people who have behaved in this way in the war—indeed, as gallantly as our own Service people—in the way one would like to do. I do not think that we could give to these people preferential treatment beyond what British ex-Service men have by way of pension for war services.

But nobody is asking for preferential treatment. What was said at the time was that the breach with their own country was probably temporary and, therefore, we would not bring them in and make them eligible for our war pensions. Now that it has become plain that that breach is permanent, would it not be reasonable and generous, and fair recognition of the very gallant services rendered, to treat them as our own people?

I have paid what I thought was an adequate tribute to the way in which these gallant people served the cause of freedom. I am second to none in the tribute which I pay to them. This matter has been examined by successive Governments since the end of the war and I do not think the circumstances have changed in such a way as to make it possible to review the policy, as my hon. Friend has asked in this specific Question. If it is wished to bring forward further information I shall be only too glad to look at it, but it would be wrong for me to mislead my hon. Friend and the House into thinking that the inquiries which we have carried out so far would lead me to make any change.

asked the Secretary of State for War what modernisation has taken place since 1945 in the barracks and married quarters at Gibraltar.

About £700,000 has been spent since 1945 on new constructions, improvements and modernisation.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the conditions in barracks at Gibraltar are on all-fours with those in Germany and in this country?

No, I am not. The only really satisfactory solution in Gibraltar is new building, since most of the property housing the troops is too old for modernisation. This rebuilding must be linked with the new town plan for the garrison and for this the plan is well advanced.

How soon will the plan come into operation?

I am afraid that I cannot give any estimate of that. It depends on the Gibraltar authorities. It might be that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary can give a more adequate answer. We are anxious to press ahead, but we must do so in combination with the Gibraltar authorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman inviting a Spanish general or admiral or even General Franco to open the new barracks?

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what facilities have been given to the military mission from Spain, headed by Colonel Joaquin Lopez, to visit the fighting vehicles development establishment at Chobham, Surrey;

A party of Spanish officers was invited by the firms concerned to visit their works. My Department co-operated with the firms in arranging the visit, which was timed to coincide with the demonstration of weapons and equipment held in October at the Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment at Chobham. No special facilities were given to the party. 'The question of export licences has not arisen.

Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the previous Questions and Answers about the joint naval manoeuvres? Is this another indication that Her Majesty's Government will now pursue a policy of military and naval alliance with a country which is Fascist, which represses liberties, and denies all the democratic ideas for which this country stands?

I do not think that even the hon. Member has any justification for drawing that conclusion from the Answer to his specific Questions. Even the hon. Member himself would have been welcome at this demonstration.

In view of the fact that there are several Questions on the Order Paper dealing with a naval and military agreement between Spain and this country, may I ask whether any pact or agreement has been made between us, openly or covertly, that will lead us to some such agreement?

That is a wider question and the hon. Member should put it on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for War what action he intends to take to clear the name of Fusilier Marsh, who was wrongfully arrested by civilian police at the request of his Department, and on his behalf, at his home in St. Helens, Lancashire; and whether he will consider making suitable arrangements to compensate Fusilier Marsh for the distress caused to him and his wife.

My hon. Friend has already written to the hon. Member, giving him a full account of the circumstances, but I am glad to take this opportunity of stating that no blame whatever attaches to Fusilier Marsh, and to express my own regret at this unhappy error. I must, however, make it quite clear that Fusilier Marsh was not arrested, and I do not consider that there are grounds in this case for financial compensation.

Is the Minister aware that apologies are not enough in a case like this? Is he aware that this young man was wrongfully detained? Is it his impression that it is a good advertisement to encourage young men to join Her Majesty's Forces when men like this young fellow are treated in such a bad way? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider compensating this young man for the damage for which his Department was responsible by this wrongful arrest?

The hon. Member has had a full letter from my hon. Friend on this matter. I feel that to make an apology was the right action to take in this case. This was a complete mistake by a member of the clerical staff. When the fusilier was thought to be a deserter, the clerk informed the police. The police did not arrest Fusilier Marsh or detain him but they asked him to go to the police station to establish the facts. I very much regret this error. It was a simple human error for which I felt I should apologise, and I have done so.

What action has been taken about the clerk who was responsible for this, and what action has been taken to ensure that in future before an allegation of this sort is made it is checked to establish its accuracy?

I understand my hon. Friends interest in this matter. If he would like to consult me I will go into all the facts with him without detaining the House. It was an error which I do not believe will happen again. The civilian clerk concerned has left the Service.

On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for War what representations he has received from the Officers' Pension Society asking that all retired pay and widows' pensions should be reviewed immediately, and also biennially, with a view to awarding compensation for rises in the cost of living; and what action he intends to take on those proposals.

The chairman of the Society has recently written to the Adjutant General raising a number of points about retired pay and pensions. His letter is being studied and will be answered when it has been given due consideration. However, I think that it is only fair to make one general point. Successive Governments have taken the view that it would be wrong to treat existing Armed Forces' pensioners differently from the general body of public service pensioners. I cannot hold out any hope that a different view will be taken now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are considerable disparities between the pensions now available to retired officers after a certain date and after a certain age and the pensions for those retired officers who had to retire compulsorily before a certain date? Is he also aware of the considerable hardship caused by these disparities and will he in his reconsideration of the representations made to him take all these factors into account?

I will certainly take all factors into account when a reply is sent to this very voluminous document. It would be wrong for me to make any pronouncement before I thoroughly examine it, but on the facts we have at the moment I do not think that we can change the policy.

Is my right hon. Friend quite sure that he is justified in making this comparison with other public service pensions? Is he not taking advantage of the fact that these are among the most loyal and long suffering of the civilian members of the population? Is he aware that at any rate they seem to think that they are being exploited?

I think that we are taking the right attitude. My admiration for these people is not in any way diminishing, but the Grigg Report took this view and this has been the view taken by successive Governments. I can do no more than say that I will look at the representations on the basis of which this Question has been put on the Order Paper.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whilst he continues paying pensions in bad money, which is what this amounts to, to the people who receive these pensions, these people act as anti-recruiting officers and do so in the very families from which we draw our best recruits? Is he aware that it is no use offering most attractive pensions now when we provide this example that the pension will not be worth much when the person receives it?

Although that may be relevant, it goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

Will my right hon. Friend forget for a moment about successive Governments, in view of the fact that the present Prime Minister promised that everybody should share in the country's prosperity? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a pledge on the part of this Government and has nothing to do with successive Governments? When shall we have an implementation of this pledge? When we have it, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he can leave it to the House of Commons to see that other people get their fair share?

Answer.

May I have an answer?

I am sorry. I did not mean to leave my hon. Friend without a reply. I was considering her long question. I cannot go further than the Answer I have given to the Question on the Order Paper, but I will bear in mind the points that have been made when I come to consider this document.

Will my right hon. Friend look again at the possibility of putting all retired officers on current rates of retirement pay? Can he explain why an officer who retired in 1946, for instance, should be on a lower pension than an officer of the same rank who retires today after similar service?

I do not think I should answer any of these questions in isolation. I will bear them in mind when I look at this document.