asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the recent conference of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministers at Athens; and if, in view of official statements issued in connection with this conference, he will reaffirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, agreed with the United States Government, that no United States aircraft based in Great Britain can be used without the joint decision of the two Governments.

As to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on Wednesday, 9th May.

I welcome that reassurance, or restatement of an assurance given by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but is there not some inconsistency between it and the recent statement that the President of the United States of America has the exclusive ultimate discretion on the use of any nuclear weapons anywhere?

To be honest, I am not quite sure to what statement of the President the hon. Gentleman is referring. I can only stand on the known facts which I have set out in my Answer. As to the broader issue, of course, the President of the United States has the ultimate decision over all American nuclear weapons, but I think that he is also pledged to consultation as far as it is possible in the time available.

But is this "consultation as far as it is possible" the same thing as a joint decision by the two Governments?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the broad issue of nuclear weapons as a whole. If he is referring to the special question of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government, certainly this is a matter for joint decision.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the proposals tabled by the United States Government at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting in Athens, together with the text of the final communiqué issued by the conference.

I will arrange for the text of the communiqué to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In so far as proposals made by other N.A.T.O. countries are concerned, it would not be proper for me to go beyond the terms of the communiqué.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make available in some form to Members of Parliament and the public generally the admirable statement issued from the White House on 30th April, on the eve of the Athens conference, which set out in detail the policy of the American Government which was pursued at the conference and was quite clearly the view accepted by the Athens conference?

I will consider that and, if it is proper, perhaps I can put it in the Library. May I say further—on this, I think, I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, although I had not quite realised it last week—that we were all, I think, in great difficulty because I had not realised what a poor coverage had been given to the communiqué in the British Press. I imagine that most Members of the House had not the communiqué before them at Question Time last Wednesday.

I understand the practical difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but does it not look as though his public relations people work at full speed on some occasions and they go into low gear on others, and that this difference between high and low gear rather depends on the political convenience of the Government rather than on considerations of defence?

The simple answer is that it is not the duty of my Department to put out N.A.T.O. communiqués.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information which he gave to the special conference of defence correspondents, which he called so that he could outline the military aspects of the Athens North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference, which met at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th May, 1962, in Conference Room E, Second Floor, at the Ministry of Defence, and which was convened under the authority of Ministry of Defence letter, PRO/L(62)202, dated 8th May, 1962.

I am glad to arrange for a summary of the main points of my statement to the Press of 9th May to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I also propose to circulate the letter referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question which makes it quite plain that any briefing of the Press was postponed until after I had answered Questions in the House of Commons last Wednesday. I think that when hon. Members have had time to study the summary, they will find that I said nothing that has not already been made available to the House.

Will the Minister give an account Ito the House of how it comes about that on the day before Questions are answered in the House his Department circulates to the Press a statement that he proposes, after his answers to Questions, to hold a Press conference to discuss the military aspects and then, when he comes to the House, he does not himself discuss the military aspects at all but gives, as it was, just a collection of words which mean little or nothing? How does it come about that in his Press conference at five o'clock he tells the Press that B.A.O.R. is to increase its strength to 55,000 in the short run and is to go up to 64,000 later, and that the figure of 75,000 is mentioned? Why does not the Minister tell the House when this proposal is to be carried out, how much it will cost and how the Government propose to get over the exchange difficulties which they have been making an awful lot of during the past few months?

The hon. Gentleman is making quite unjustified allegations about what happened at a Press conference at which he was not present. I am issuing a very full summary of what I said. I do not depart from what I said in my original Answer. If the hon. Gentleman has the courtesy to study it and to study what I said both last Wednesday and in recent defence debates and what I have said in recent answers to Questions, he will find that I did not go beyond that in any way.

Will the Minister confirm that he did at the Press conference indicate to the Press that the strength of B.A.O.R. was to be raised from 51,000 to 55,000? Will he confirm that he did not say that in the House? Further, will he confirm that that very issue was a central argument between us in the last defence debate? If he confirms those three facts, does he not think that he treated the House badly that day by not telling it what he proposed to go and tell the Press at five o'clock?

The first answer to the right hon. Gentleman will be given if I read a short piece of the summary. I shall not trouble the House with the whole of it. The purpose of the conference was not to provide any new information but to try to deal with widespread misunderstandings in the Press that the N.A.T.O. conference was divided, that there had been divisions of view and that it was an unsuccessful conference. It is definitely my duty to try to put matters right if I think that there is a misconception. That, and nothing else, was the purpose of holding the conference.

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman realises that anyone who has studied the papers appreciates that the Athens conference was a successful conference and that the American view which was set out on 30th April prevailed. But is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have now brought themselves into line with American policy, but they have not told the House and the country how they will do it?

No, that is quite wrong. If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to read what I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech on 1st November last year, he will see that I then said quite plainly that we supported General Norstad's new defence plan for the central front of Europe. It was as long ago as that that I made perfectly plain that we were in line with the Alliance on this particular matter.

asked the Minister of Defence what steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring about closer co-operation between North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member countries referred to in paragraph 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué published in Athens on 6th May, 1962.

asked the Minister of Defence what will be the effect upon existing arrangements for deployment, custody and potential use of nuclear weapons within Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers in Europe, of the measures relating to nuclear policy and nuclear weapons referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué published in Athens on 6th May, 1962.

As I said in the House last week, Ministers agreed at Athens to establish forthwith a special Committee, comprising all members of the Alliance, for the exchange of informa- tion about the nuclear defences of N.A.T.O. This was largely the result of a British initiative which, I hope, will led to a better understanding in N.A.T.O. of the problems of nuclear defence. I have no reason to believe that the setting up of this Committee or the assurances given by the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government will lead to any immediate changes in the deployment, custody or plans for the use of nuclear weapons in S.H.A.P.E.

Could the right hon. Gentleman then explain briefly and clearly what is the escalator of weapons usage of the conventional and nuclear weapons at present adopted by N.A.T.O.? Secondly, in view of the fact that there are three independent nuclear Powers and that the rest of them are clamouring to obtain possession of nuclear weapons, how long does he think that this position can obtain?

I am not going to disclose to the House the rules under which the Alliance will decide on the use of either nuclear or conventional weapons. Such a statement would certainly not be conducive to maintaining the strength of the deterrent.

I think everyone will agree that the Minister would be grossly wrong to disclose such rules, but can he at least assure the House that such rules exist?

It is to look at all these rules and procedures that the Nuclear Committee has been set up.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in relation to stocks of American missiles held in the United Kingdom, he is given full information by the United States Government as to their number, location, nuclear capacity and possible targets.

I have full information about the Thor missiles in the United Kingdom. As for the Polaris missiles, I am satisfied with the information which I receive under the arrangements for the use of the Holy Loch by Polaris submarines.

Can the Minister give an assurance, with reference to the information referred to in the Question, that this country is not being treated as a junior partner but as an equal partner, and will he say also whether, and to what extent, the decision at Athens to receive and exchange information about N.A.T.O. nuclear defences increases the amount of information available to Her Majesty's Government?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that we are treated as an equal partner. The N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee is, of course, designed to give more nuclear information to non-nuclear members of the Alliance. I do not think that it is likely to increase the knowledge of the nuclear members of the Alliance.

Has the Minister had recent conversations with the Americans regarding the gradual dismantling of the Thor missile bases?

I have had no recent conversations on this subject, but I said in the defence debate, I think, that the future of these particular missiles must be reviewed from time to time.

asked the Minister of Defence what pledge he has given to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding the level of United Kingdom conventional forces for Germany.

asked the Minister of Defence what changes he intends to make in the British Army of the Rhine as a result of decisions reached by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting in Athens recently.

Britain's present commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is to maintain seven brigade groups in B.A.O.R. I have no plans for changes in these force levels at present.

Are we to understand that that is a definite declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government that we are not going to increase our conventional forces in Germany, and, if statements are made in the United States or elsewhere to a contrary effect, will they be denied by the Minister?

I should be glad to put this as clearly as I can to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, our commitment to N.A.T.O. is seven brigade groups. That is spelt out by Western European Union in our treaty obligation as 55,000 men, as I am sure he knows. What I have said today is that that is our treaty commitment and our commitment to N.A.T.O. I wish—I have said this time and again in the House—to fulfil that commitment as soon as we reasonably can. Beyond that, I am not prepared to go.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that in weapons and training much greater emphasis will be placed upon conventional weapons in B.A.O.R.?

I agree with this, too. I think that B.A.O.R. and, if I may say this without appearing to criticise the Alliance, all the regular forces in N.A.T.O., badly need re-equipment with better conventional armaments. This is one of the reasons why we put forward our proposal for much more rapid progress in the N.A.T.O. armaments committee.

While entirely agreeing with these commitments, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it will be possible for any of the battalions in these seven brigade groups to be used as part of the strategic reserve?

There is, of course, a general waiver in the W.E.U. Treaty—which, again, I mentioned in my speech in the defence debate—which allows us to take troops away from the N.A.T.O. area if we are facing a severe crisis elsewhere. In fact, we took some aircraft away from Germany at the time of the Kuwait crisis, although we took no ground forces. That has always been a clearly understood part of our treaty obligation and, therefore, the answer to my hon. Friend's Question is: yes, we really can do this if we are in great difficulties elsewhere.

Is not our treaty obligation under the Brussels Treaty to provide four divisions or brigades, or 80,000 men? Does not the figure of 55,000 arise from an acceptance by our N.A.T.O. partners of what was, in effect, a fait accompli which they really had no option but to accept? Are we now to understand that the figure is going to breach at least that minimum—that is, from 51,000 up to 55,000—and if that be so, where is the right hon. Gentleman finding the troops?

I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was talking about 75,000. Perhaps I should explain what I have explained many times before; the original commitment to W.E.U. was, I think, 75,000 men; that is, four divisions or 75,000 men. There is a second waiver to the Treaty in addition to the one I mentioned in my previous reply. This says that if a country asks for a reduction in its Treaty commitment, and SACEUR agrees that this is something which he can tolerate and agree to, then SACEUR goes to W.E.U. and says "I agree to this." It was on that basis that we brought down our forces from four divisions, or 75,000 men, to three divisions, or 55,000 men. That was done perfectly correctly and honourably and implies no breach of the Treaty.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has not entered into any commitments which will in any way reduce our effectiveness in the area of Aden and Singapore, where we hold a very important position?

I have not entered into any commitment at all. The commitment which rests on us is the treaty obligation we have under the W.E.U. Treaty. I have entered into no other commitments and have no intention of doing so.

On his return from Athens did not the right hon. Gentleman make a statement, which has been publicised, to the effect that before we increase our conventional forces in Germany he will expect some of the other allied countries to increase their forces? Suppose they increase their forces, are we going to enter into a further commitment with conventional forces?

I am glad to answer that, too. I do not think I gave an answer in the terms used by the right hon. Gentleman. I said—and these are the facts—that the contribution to the build-up in forces, particularly on the N.A.T.O. central front, rests very heavily, for example, on the Germans, who have a commitment for twelve divisions to defend their own country. I hope that they will soon reach that figure, but that implies no extra commitment by Britain.

asked the Minister of Defence what changes will be necessary to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Eastern Atlantic Command organisation as a result of decisions taken at the Athens meeting.

SACLANT is considering whether any reorganisation in his Command is needed following the Athens meeting. It is too soon to say what changes, if any, may be required.

Is it not a fact that in addition to the strike fleet, the Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Atlantic, will now have a force of Polaris submarines operating in his area in war over which he will have no command? Is that not an operationally unacceptable situation in war?

I do not think the facts are quite like that. It really means, as I understand it—but this is being looked at—that this particular force is now an additional commitment and that, in time of war, it would be under N.A.T.O. and co-ordinated with the N.A.T.O. tactical plan.

asked the Minister of Defence what agreement he reached at Athens with the United States Secretary of Defence on the distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

It did not fall to the Athens Conference to discuss this question. It was to deal with this kind of problem that we wanted the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee set up.

Is it not the case that nowadays there is very little difference between the tactical and the strategic nuclear weapon? Was the American Secretary of Defence not rather perturbed, therefore, by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was making the Army of the Rhine dependent on the tactical nuclear weapon? Did he not fear that that would merely encourage the claims of President Adenauer and President de Gaulle not only for the possession but also for the control of the tactical nuclear weapon which we are now going to attain when Blue Water comes along?

The real truth of the matter is that all the members of the Alliance have, for a considerable time, been disturbed about the general kind of argument that goes on—in public and in private—about, for example, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. I agree that the definition is more related to the target than to the weapon. We in N.A.T.O. feel that it is high time that we tried to bring greater precision into this and to tidy up this situation. That is why the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee was set up. I think that it can do a very useful job and I hope that out of this and the general discussions in the N.A.T.O. Council will come a much clearer line of action; for example, on the differentiation between the different types of weapons and on the best means of using the weapons themselves.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will now state the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the control, direct or indirect, by West Germany over nuclear weapons or weapons with a nuclear capacity.

asked the Minister of Defence what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the control, whether directly or indirectly, by the West German Government over the use of nuclear weapons.

asked the Minister of Defence what steps were taken or contemplated at the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council meeting in Athens to provide stocks of British or United States manufactured nuclear weapons to France, to the Federal Republic of Germany or any other non-nuclear power within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

As stated by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 18th December last year, Her Majesty's Government would, in accordance with the resolution for which the United Kingdom voted in the United Nations on 4th December, be opposed to the relinquishment of control of nuclear weapons to any non-nuclear State. No proposals for giving Federal German forces independent control of nuclear warheads are under consideration, and there are no proposals for changes in the present arrangements for providing N.A.T.O. forces with nuclear warheads.

In view of the rather ambiguous statement the Minister made last week, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will now confirm that what he has just said means that Her Majesty's Government will not be a party to any proposal to give West Germany control, direct or indirect, over nuclear weapons?

That is exactly what this Answer says.

But if the West German generals are now to be given, as I understand they are, details of where the weapons and the warheads are stored—and since their targets and also their use is, I understand, to be simplified in an emergency—is this not yet another step towards giving these gentlemen control over their use? Is the Minister aware that most people in this country would not trust these people with water pistols, let alone weapons of this kind?

The hon. Gentleman is making an incorrect assumption of what N.A.T.O. is trying to do. As to nuclear warheads, they remain in the custody of the United States Government, under a well-recognised procedure. All that the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee is trying to do in an alliance of equal nations is to give every nation some reasonable knowledge about what part it should play in the nuclear defence side of the Alliance. This seems necessary in order to strengthen the Alliance.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that part of his statement which referred to nonnuclear Powers refers exactly to the Republic of France?

I think that the hon. Gentleman must put that Question down if he wants a considered answer.

It is exactly the Question I have down, which deliberately includes France.

Well, I think that in this case—and I am not seeking to evade the issue—the House will understand that I must try to be careful and precise in answering on such an important matter. All I am saying is that if one judges that France is today a nuclear Power, then she would not be covered by my Answer.

While welcoming the Government's desire to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, may I ask whether they do not find it some embarrassment to them that while they are urging some countries not to have nuclear weapons they are themselves determined to remain an independent nuclear Power?

I do not think that that follows at all, because one has only to take the current attitude of France to nuclear Powers—on which I do not propose to comment one way or the other—to see that any action by Britain would have singularly little effect or influence in this direction.

asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements he has made to employ British strategic nuclear weapons in the event of a threat to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation beyond the capability of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation committed forces to deal with, having regard to paragraph 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Press Release M1(62)4 for distribution 6th May, 1962.

The assurance given by Her Majesty's Government to N.A.T.O. about the use of British strategic nuclear forces calls for no changes in our operational planning.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House definitely whether he appreciates that this is a very dangerous doctrine which is implied in the communiqué, which advocates the use of strategic nuclear weapons when conventional forces are expected to contain a conventional attack?

What the communiqué says is that an assurance has been given by the United States and by Britain that any nuclear targets which cannot be looked after by N.A.T.O. committed forces will be looked after by the strategic forces of those two countries. I entirely agree with that.

asked the Minister of Defence what discussions have taken place in the defence committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding the need for West German military forces to be increased beyond the limits laid down in the protocols to the Brussels Treaty.

There have been no such discussions. So far as I know no official proposal of the kind has been made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the limit on the size of the German armed forces laid down in the Brussels Treaty—the figure has never been officially published—is, in fact, twelve divisions? Can he give a further assurance that no member of N.A.T.O. has proposed that it shall be increased beyond those twelve divisions?

I answered the second part of that supplementary in my original Answer, but I would like notice of the question if the hon. Gentleman wants me to disclose protocols to the Brussels Treaty.

asked the Minister of Defence what will be the additional expenditure outside the sterling area as a result of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence plan agreed upon at Athens.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 9th May.

But rightly or wrongly, that Answer has been interpreted to mean that there will be no additional expenditure. Does the right hon. Gentleman still accept that interpretation, since the N.A.T.O. frontier will now be advanced almost to the Iron Curtain and that, therefore, there must be new barracks, new troops and new aircraft if this plan is to mature?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman of my answer last week, when I said:

"So far as it is possible to estimate at the moment, none of the decisions reached in Athens will involve increased defence expenditure for the United Kingdom."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1962;Vol. 659, c. 438.]

Is it not fantastic that the right hon. Gentleman should engage in plans, when he evidently has no knowledge of the financial effects involved? Surely he can give the House, in view of the many commitments to which we are attached, some idea of what this is going to cost the Exchequer?

The hon. Gentleman asked, as did the preceding Question, what was the increased cost of any new defence plan agreed upon at Athens. No new defence plan was agreed upon at Athens. This is a matter which has to be discussed in N.A.T.O. and in the triennial review and the details of this will take a very long time to formulate and work out.

Do not let us quibble about this. The right hon. Gentleman has already told us that, whether it is a new plan or not, as a result of Athens we have agreed to perform our treaty obligation as he sees it and increase the forces in Germany by 4,000. Is he now telling us that the 4,000 additional men in Germany involve no additional expenditure outside the sterling area?

With great respect, I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is up to date on what is happening. What is happening is, as I said, that we supported General Norstad's new plans. That is true. The new plans will have to go before the N.A.T.O. political Council to be approved, and they are not formally binding upon us till they are.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as stated in paragraph 12 of the 1958 Defence White Paper, has been modified as a result of the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Council, and the strategic policy agreed there.

The paragraph to which the hon. Member refers describes N.A.T.O. strategy at the time the White Paper was written. N.A.T.O. keeps its strategy under review. No changes have been announced since the date of the White Paper.

I asked the Minister a fairly simple Question. I asked him whether this paragraph still represents the Government's policy for which he is wholly answerable to the House. Is it still the Government's policy that the West will rely primarily upon the deterrent effect of this vast stockpile of nuclear weapons? Is it still his view that the allied defence forces in Europe will hold the front as long as is needed to bring the nuclear counter-offensive into effect? Will the right hon. Gentleman pay himself the compliment of repudiating the paragraph in the interests of defence policy?

I hope that the hon. Member will pay himself the compliment of reading the communiqué, which says that

"The purpose of N.A.T.O. is defence, and it must be clear that in case of attack it will defend its members by all necessary means."

I asked the Minister if he would be good enough to answer the Question I put down. I have asked about that paragraph. Will he say simply whether this is Government policy or whether it is not?

Certainly it remains Government policy because it conforms to the present strategy of N.A.T.O. If it is decided to alter that strategy then we shall conform to the altered strategy as we do to the present one, providing that it is agreed by the N.A.T.O. Council.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent air trooping and other air transport requirements of the Services have been restricted as a result of the recent decision of British United Airways to dismiss a large number of its personnel and thus curtail its activities.

There has been no restriction in the services provided by this company to the Forces.

In view of the possible difficulties of a cut down in the availability of charter transport, is the Minister reviewing the transport requirements of the Services and considering whether a greater part of them could be the responsibility of the Royal Air Force?

Royal Air Force Transport Command is increasing in size all the time. If there were an emergency—I mean, in the sense either of warlike operations or an acute defence emergency—then, of course, there are adequate aircraft to cope with any particular moves. The moves the hon. Member has referred to are normal trooping, a process which, of course, does not depend on accuracy to a day or two. I will certainly look into the whole problem. I am very anxious that people should not have their leave curtailed because there are not sufficient aircraft to move them on the due dates.

asked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to assist in examining the balance between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's nuclear and conventional forces as recommended in paragraph 9 of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué.

As the communiqué states the N.A.T.O. Council will be considering a report on the contribution of Member Countries towards balanced forces for N.A.T.O. defence at its next meeting in December. As I said in the House last week the triennial review which deals with the level of conventional forces will shortly be doing this complicated work. The United Kingdom will take a full part in the usual way in the review which will form the basis of the report to the Council.

When the White Paper says that the West relies for its defence primarily upon the deterrent effect of its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and that the allied forces in Europe will hold the front for the time needed for us to bring in the counter-offensive, is that the balance of nuclear and conventional forces contemplated by the Government in this paragraph?

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well what the balance is. The balance is indeed recognised in the communiqué, and by the statement by the British and United States Governments. It partly rests on strategic nuclear weapons, partly on tactical weapons, partly on conventional weapons. It is a balance which always needs re-examination, and that is what the Answer says.

Surely something has happened at Athens, and surely that something is a recognition that we can rely much less than we previously contemplated on massive deterrents or whatever it is, and that we have got to rely much more on conventional forces? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman face up to it and say so?

I do not face up to it because it was not a decision taken at Athens. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be kind enough to read my original Answer, he will see that the Alliance proposes to examine this problem.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the commitment of five Polaris submarines to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation mentioned in paragraph 8 of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué will affect existing arrangements for consultation on and control and command of the Polaris submarines.

The existing arrangements for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States' Government on the use of Polaris submarines are not affected. The assigning of submarines to N.A.T.O. in war would mean that they would then in addition come under N.A.T.O. control arrangements.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these facilities were provided in 1960 and that he informed the House that they were provided on the basis that they were of very great importance for a limited period? As a result of the additional submarines, has any change been made of the length of time we can expect those facilities to be made available?

No. I do not think the decision announced in Athens by the United States makes any difference to existing arrangements.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is satisfied that his fishery protection vessels are adequate for all the tasks they are called on to perform; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The Fishery Protection Squadron consists of four frigates and six minesweepers. Their duties range from the enforcement of national and international fishery regulations in home waters to helping our fishermen in the traditional distant-water grounds. The ships of the squadron are also fully trained for their primary duties as warships.

Will the hon. Gentle-consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the incident off Lundy Island when a Cornish fishing boat was fired on from the island so that, although the incident is not likely to be repeated there, such an incident will not be repeated elsewhere?

Yes, I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend, but it is not a matter for the Fishery Protection Squadron. I think that irregular use of fire arms is a matter for the police. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's Question will draw the chief constable's attention to this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishing industry as a whole is very grateful for the wonderful work of the Fishery Protection Squadron?

I am grateful for that tribute. The squadron operates much of the time in very unpleasant conditions. The fact that last year it arrested fifteen as opposed to nine foreign poachers shows that the squadron's work is reasonably satisfactory.

asked the Civil Lord of Admiralty what change has been made in the proposed date of commencement of work on the rebuilding of the living accommodation of H.M.S. "Caledonia".

I regret that it has not yet been possible to make a start on this scheme. I have the whole question under review, but am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he told us that this was to be commenced this year? Does he still intend to keep to that arrangement?

No. I am sorry to say that I am afraid that things have slowed down a little bit on the building work itself, although we are going on with the design, because of the priorities which have to go in other directions, so that it is unlikely to start now this year.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that although modernisation of the "Caledonia" is somewhat delayed, he is satisfied with the programmes of building at other schools?

I can assure my hon. Friend that modernisation or new building is going on at a number of other schools—at "Excellent", "St. Vincent" "Ganges", "Fisguard", and a number of others as well.

In view of the fact that the Admiralty seems not to be keeping its promises in connection with this now, will the hon. Gentleman consider reducing the period of time expected to be taken for this building?

I will certainly look at this, but we have to give priority to urgent operational tasks and we also have to remember a number of other obligations which we have. I am sorry that in this particular case it has slipped a few months.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty which ships listed on page 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, Command Paper 1629, are due to be scrapped during the current financial year.

It would not be in the public interest to give a breakdown of section D of the "Strength of the Fleet" even if it were practicable to foresee all the events which might change the categories in the list.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that section D of the memorandum is misleading and tends to give a false impression of the strength of our naval forces? Is it not true that quite a number of these ships are just waiting to be scrapped? Is it not misleading to suggest that they are all really of very great value as reserve ships?

My noble Friend has gone out of his way to be more helpful and to expand this explanatory statement to give much more information than we gave ten years ago. We have expanded if from half a page to two and a half pages and four appendices. I do not think it would be very helpful to define the categories more exactly. There are five categories—reserve ships, long refits, modernisations, scrapping, and sales. They all come within these categories within a single year which this memorandum covers. If a ship met with a serious accident we might move it from the operational fleet to the reserve, and bring forward a ship to the immediately operational reserve. There is a degree of flexibility in this list, and it is, I think, desirable. Moreover, we do not want to give too much information to our possible opponents.

Are not ships to be scrapped in the current year often offered to buyers? Do they have to be kept secret in those circumstances?

I do not believe it is going to be in the long-term interests of the taxpayers to show what ships exactly we have on our list. That is another reason why we obscure the issue a little by grouping the ships together in a single list.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty who was responsible for a dance being given on Saturday, 5th May, in H.M.S. "St. Vincent", at Gosport, Hampshire; how many guests attended; what was the cost to naval funds; and how many naval and Royal Marine ratings respectively were employed for the dance.

This was a private dance given by the Captain, H.M.S. "St. Vincent", to 350 guests. There were no costs to public funds, and no Service personnel were employed.

I thank the Civil Lord for that reply which was practically the same as the second Press statement made by Captain Tufnell. I may have to put down further Questions. Are all naval establishments available for such large-scale personal functions as the giving of coming-out dances for daughters? If so, what is the effect on the private enterprise hotel industry which the Tory Party is always out to support because it pays rates and taxes? Do petty officers and ratings have similar facilities for their dances, wedding parties, and bingo parties?

I must admit to the hon. Member that I did not expect a supplementary question about private enterprise restaurants to come from him. Petty officers have held three dances each year and the chief petty officers have held a dance each year and there have been 15 or 20 other social occasions. Wedding receptions are quite often held in such establishments and I hope that they will continue to be held there, provided that such functions do not fall to be paid for out of public funds. The captain leaned over backwards to make sure that every single thing, including even the hire of the hall and the cost of the electricity, was paid for by himself and not out of public funds.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he will produce a revised version of the 1909 Memorandum on Greenwich Hospital to give the present details of properties, investments, income and pensions; and what is the proportion in which the income is appropriated for pensions and other purposes and administration.

The publication of a memorandum on the lines of that issued in 1909 would be very costly in time and money and we do not feel able to justify it. We are however publishing this year an illustrated memorandum on the history of the Royal Hospital School to mark the 250th anniversary of its foundation and I will arrange for a few copies to be placed in the Library.

Does the Civil Lord appreciate that Greenwich Hospital is a £4 million organisation, that some of the property is Crown property held by the Admiralty in trust for Her Majesty and the benefit of pensioners, that its estimates have been subject to scrutiny by the House for more than a century, and that it is essential for hon. Members to have full and up-to-date information fully to discuss the estimates this year, a debate which we expect will take a long time and which, unless arranged for early in the day, may go on all night?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to build any more conventionally-powered submarines before laying down a third nuclear submarine.

We announced recently at Chatham when the "Ocelot" was launched that a twelfth Oberon conventional submarine would be built there. There have been no other decisions on the submarine building programme.

While we all appreciate that the continuing usefulness of conventionally powered submarines will last for many years ahead, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will agree that it is also a fact that, with the present rate of so-called progress, by the 1970s the Soviet Union will have a sizeable force of nuclear submarines to which we shall have virtually no answer whatever?

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we must get on with this programme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and the Treasury and the Board of Admiralty are all closely concerned with this. I equally agree that the conventionals must form a very valuable part of the Fleet at least until the early 1980s.

Can my hon. Friend say when these conversations among three Government Departments will result in some action?

I am afraid that I am unable to tell my hon. Friend at this moment.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of recruits to the Scottish regiments during 1961 came from outside Scotland; and what proportion of these men had family connections with the Scottish regiments.

In 1961 about 8 per cent. of recruits to Scottish regiments came from outside Scotland. All will have had family or national connections with Scottish regiments.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that that comparatively high figure is good evidence that these regiments form a most valuable magnet for recruiting to the British Army in this day and age, and that their identity should be maintained and that they should be declared a corps d'élite? Would he be good enough to remind the noble field marshal, who made a rather extraordinary speech recently in another place about tribal areas descending into the Midlands, that he should be very careful about checking his facts and that the Highland regiments who supported him so gallantly in the war are still of the utmost value to British defence?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said in the latter part of his supplementary question. Recruitment in Scotland is going very well and is nearly 20 per cent. up this year on what it was last year. As the field marshal himself is of Scottish extraction, this seems to be a row between Pict forces in which I would rather not intervene.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of Army battledress blouses and trousers were manufactured in the Republic of Ireland during 1960–61 and 1961–62, respectively.

No battledress was manufactured in the Republic of Ireland during 1960–61. Just under 3 per cent. of the requirement for battledress trousers were manufactured there during 1961–62.

On how many occasions during the last six years have forces and establishments of the Crown been attacked by members of the Irish Republic Army wearing British battledress? Will my right hon. Friend agree to consult on the security aspect with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland?

I cannot say on how many occasions, but my hon. Friend can be fairly certain that we will account for every pair of trousers which we order from Southern Ireland before we pay for them.

May I press my right hon. Friend about consulting the Home Secretary?

Yes. I will consult my right hon. Friend when he returns from Central Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tourists have stayed in Scottish hotels and guest houses in each of the last five years.

As the Answer contains a number of figures I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

If I am anticipating the figures correctly, I believe that they will show an encouraging increase in tourist traffic. Would not my hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates the importance of the growing tourist trade to Scotland's economy? Is it his view that any proposal which would appear to lessen Scotland's welcome to the visitor should be treated with the greatest caution?

I agree that the figures show an encouraging increase over the years. I think that my hon. Friend's second supplementary question would be more appropriate to Question No. 35.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now received the views of the Scottish Tourist Board concerning the imposition of a tax on tourists; and what proposals he now has for introducing a levy on those who stay in Scottish hotels.

While the Scottish Tourist Board participated in the discussions which resulted in the proposals for a Scottish Tourist Fund, my right hon. Friend has not as yet received any expression of the Board's own views. We are carefully watching reactions; but no decision has yet been reached about implementation, which would of course require legislation.

While more funds to improve tourist facilities are needed, does not my hon. Friend agree that proposals put forward recently are, to put it mildly, distasteful? Is it not true that the levy would fall particularly heavily on Scottish families who already have little enough money to spare for their holidays? Does he not agree that taxation is widespread enough without this added imposition?

I realise that the proposals have not been greeted with universal approval, but support for them has been expressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is watching the position carefully. I think that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that of the 5,426,000 visitors last year, some 3½ million came from England and Wales, 620,000 from overseas and about 1,300,000 from Scotland.

As we have just heard that the number of tourists coming to Scotland is increasing, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will take no action which would in any way disturb or impede that increase?

My right hon. Friend has made quite clear that he is awaiting the reactions and the views of the Scottish Tourist Board on this matter, and I think that it would be right for him to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his consultations with the chairman of the British Transport Commission relating to Government plans for the evacuation of the civilian population in the event of the outbreak of hostilities.

My right hon. Friend has had no such consultations.

I am not at all surprised by that Answer. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Dr. Beeching is now looking at the Scottish Railway system and is likely to cut out at least one-third of it, in most cases the unprofitable lines which run in the rural areas? Is he not further aware that it is precisely those rural areas which will be called on to take the evacuated people? How do the Government expect to evacuate people when there are no railways there?

The hon. Gentleman had better wait until we see what Dr. Beeching's scheme is, but in any case of dispersal we would use to the best advantage whatever transport means existed.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what enquiries he is making into the possible use of teaching machines in Scottish schools, as a means of effective deployment of fully trained teachers.

The Scottish Education Department has kept in close touch with the experimental work being done in relation to programmed teaching and teaching machines, notably in the University of Aberdeen, and my right hon. Friend is considering with the interests concerned how this work can best be helped forward. It is too early to expect definite results, especially in relation to teacher deployment, but we are anxious to see all possibilities of this kind exploited.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that encouraging reply. Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air about some interesting experiments in the Royal Air Force with teaching machines which show that the same results in certain mathematics courses can be obtained in half the time with the use of machines?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will immediately enforce the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, as interpreted by the High Court of Justiciary in the case of Mortensen v. Peters, 1906, 5 Adam 121.

No, Sir. This could not be done without extending the United Kingdom's fishery limits. The question whether we should seek to extend those limits is under review.

Why is the Scottish Office so coy about this? Is it not ridiculous that foreign ships can fish in waters in which our own fishermen cannot fish? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Agriculture about taking some action?

It is not a question of the Scottish Office being coy. I remind my hon. Friend that the Government must take account of the position in international law. I think that my hon Friend knows that the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replying to a Question as long ago as 4th March, 1907, said that the Act of Parliament as interpreted by the High Court of Justiciary was contrary to international law. It is for that reason that the prohibition has not hitherto been enforced on foreign vessels.

Can the hon. Gentleman say on what authority the Government take it upon themselves not to enforce the declared law of the country or, alternatively, to declare that that law is wrong? So far as I know, there has never been an appeal against this decision, or any instrument, either legislative or statutory, to alter the position.

All Governments since 1907 have held that this ruling was not in accordance with international law, and have acted accordingly.

As international law has changed considerably, especially in the last few years, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when we can expect a statement from the Government about British fishing limits?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being kept under careful review.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what has been the result of his investigation into the discovery of a recently dropped bomb at Black Drove Farm, Marshland St. James, Norfolk; whether the type and size of the bomb has yet been ascertained; when he expects to remove it; and if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which it was dropped from an aircraft.

There is no evidence that a bomb was dropped at Black Drove Farm, where a hole has appeared in the marshland. If this hole was was caused by a bomb it would appear to be a 25 lb. or 100 lb. practice bomb and investigations have shown that it would be at least 16 ft. underground. At this depth, detonation of the small explosive charge would have little or no effect at the surface.

Will my right hon. Friend do something to remove the mystery which surrounds this hole in the ground? Does he appreciate that it is not a very nice thing for a village to have a bomb dropped in the middle of it? As the first report which came to the local inhabitants was to the effect that it was a bomb and that it had definitely been located, will he have a further dig, and, if he will not have a further dig, will he make a positive statement that there is absolutely no danger to the people who live nearby?

I am glad to say that there is absolutely no danger to the people who live nearby, in view of the depth at which any object, if indeed there is one, must be. It is at least more than 16 ft. We had at first thought that it might be a bomb casually dropped, but we have had a careful check, which shows that no bombs are missing. Mine detection apparatus at one time made contact with an object, but contact has since been lost. It is conceivable that it might have been a meteorite.

Has the Secretary of State for Air checked recently on the movements of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson).

Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that no mine detection apparatus was needed to recover him from the sea.

Cannot the Secretary of State tell us whether any of his practice bombs are missing? Surely he keeps some records of what bombs there are in Air Force and what there are not. It seems that this mystery would be clarified if he assured us that none of his bombs was missing.

I have said that none of our bombs is missing and that therefore we do not think this is one of them.