asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what consideration has been given to the development by the Admiralty of the frontages of the Royal Naval Barracks, "H.M.S. Vernon" and other naval establishments at Portsmouth or to leasing some of these frontages to private developers, to provide housing, office, shop and other accommodation.

Discussions are proceeding between Portsmouth City Council and the Admiralty about plans to release 16 acres of land from the sites of Victoria and Duchess of Kent Barracks, comprising important frontages to Pembroke Road, Jubilee Terrace, King's Terrace and Alexandra Road.

When does the Admiralty propose to start the equivalent of the Government's policy of the greater use of Post Office sites, the British Transport Commission's policy of increased site utilisation, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government's policy announced today of the greater use of land, and so reduce its expenditure by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds per year?

We are looking at these sites, and we are getting rid of any surplus land which we may still have. In this instance we are getting rid of frontages amounting to more than 500 yards, and later probably a further 330 yards. I think that this ought to be quite useful to the Portsmouth City Council.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the initiative for this came from the Admiralty or from the Portsmouth City Council, and is the Admiralty really surveying this property with a view to seeing what is the best use that can be made of it?

Regarding the Duchess of Kent Barracks, I went there myself, and we have been negotiating for a long time with the Portsmouth City Council. I am unable to say where the initiative started, but both sides were anxious to come to some agreement such as I have announced.

Can my hon. Friend say whether frontages in Portsmouth or other naval ports have already been given up for these purposes?

I cannot answer that without notice. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be kind enough to put down a Question.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total floor space and number of rooms in the new Admiralty building at Earls Court; what branches of the Admiralty are to be transferred there; and on what date the transfer is to commence and be completed.

The floor space is 350,000 square feet net. There are 700 rooms including stores and plant rooms, canteen and telephone exchange roams. The transfer will start at the beginning of August and should be finished in two months. With permission I will include in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list of branches to be transferred.

Is it Admiralty policy to extend all these civilian departments on the principle of Parkinson's Law, or to reduce the number of staff and the accommodation required, and instead of using the full accommodation to use only the minimum and release the balance to another Government Department? The Admiralty does not need the whole of this vast building at the vast expense which is largely unnecessary.

I have announced to the House that it is our policy to cut down our Admiralty headquarters. I gave the undertaking that we would cut down our staff by one hundred every year for the next five years, and we are keeping to this undertaking. That was the spirit of the Select Committee's Report, which we are carrying out.

Will my hon. Friend give further thought to the decision, which I believe has been taken, to move the Admiralty library out of the main building, which I understand will involve splitting the library between the main Admiralty building and the building at Earls Court?

I shall certainly look at that point.

Is it not likely that the new building at Earls Court will itself prove inadequate, especially if it is proposed to rehouse there all our admirals, who now out-number the number of seagoing vessels in commission?

I said that we were cutting down our total staff, so I cannot see why the hon. Member should say that we need more accommodation. The hon. Member's second point is a canard which comes up every time. If he looks at the facts he will perhaps stop making incorrect imputations about the numbers of admirals. I have looked at the facts. In 1938 there were more admirals than we have now. We have cut down to 78 from 102, which was the number when the hon. Member's Government were in power.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (1) what was the purpose of the recent official visit to the United Kingdom of Admiral Karl Adolph Zenker; and if he will make a statement;

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Caspar John, our First Sea Lord, was a guest of the Federal German Navy last year and we invited Admiral Zenker to make a return four-day visit to this country.

Before inviting the admiral here, was the Minister informed of his 1956 speech, which led even Dr. Adenauer's Government to remove him? Was Zenker a fit person to make such a visit here? If Goering or Doenitz were alive today and had been reappointed to their former posts, as similar men have been, would they also have been welcome in this country?

The last part of that supplementary question is out of order as being hypothetical.

May I revert to the first two parts?

The first part. I was ruling only about the second part.

rose—

I think the Minister desires to answer the part of the supplementary question which was in order. If he does not wish to do so, we can go on.

I was about to make the point that it is the policy of the Ministry of Defence, and of the Service Departments also, to invite all chiefs of naval staff of friendly and allied nations to this country. We shall continue with that policy.

Are not some of the facts given in these Questions totally incorrect? Is it desirable that the Order Paper should be used for the purpose of disseminating Communist propaganda against our N.A.T.O. allies?

Some of the statements in the Questions are totally incorrect.

Is the Minister aware that I carefully checked those facts and that they are correct? Secondly, is he aware that there are many hon. Members, and many people outside this House, who are not anti-German but who are increasingly anxious about the number of people who planned Hitler's war invasions and commanded his brutal occupations and have received increasingly important positions both in N.A.T.O. and in the West German naval forces?

Increasing numbers of hon. Members are fully aware of where the hon. Member's affiliations lie.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did that not sound to you rather like McCarthyism, which is opposed to the traditions of this House? Is it right that a Minister should make smearing remarks of this kind because he does not like the opinions which are expressed?

The first part of what the hon. Member raises could not, I think, give rise to a question of order for me. If it does, I have not followed it. As to the second part, I have some difficulty in ruling. The reference was to affiliations without specifying what they were.

Further to that point of order. Surely and very plainly the Minister's remark was an aspersion upon my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). It was an aspersion by implication. By "affiliations" it was quite clear what was meant. In my submission, the word ought not to have been used and ought to be withdrawn.

I am not entirely sure about that because I am not sure whether it is—whatever the word is—depreciatory of an hon. Member in any sense to suggest that he belongs to a particular political party, or has affiliations with it, because it represents a minority view. As this is Question Time, I should be obliged if the Minister would withdraw the aspersion because any imputation in Question Time is out of order.

If the cap does not fit I shall be very happy to withdraw it.

On a point of order—

On a point of order—

I am willing to receive a point of order, but I cannot hear more than one at a time. I think I saw the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) first.

Is it not in accordance with the custom of this House that when any imputation is withdrawn it is withdrawn without any qualification, and did not the Minister qualify his withdrawal?

Actually I did not hear the terms the Minister used because I was asking something.

I said, if the cap did not fit I should be happy to withdraw it. If it is your desire, Mr. Speaker, that I should withdraw it, I withdraw it.

As points of order have been raised in connection with the Questions, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you should call the attention of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) to the fact that he has responsibility for the statements in the Questions? You will recollect that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty has denied the accuracy of the statements in the Questions.

It is true that an hon. Member tabling a Question bears personal responsibility for the facts stated in it. I do not rule about the accuracy or not of the facts.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the Admiralty will vacate Rex House, Lower Regent Street, and Queen Anne's Mansions, St. James's Park; how many staff will be displaced; and where they will be accommodated.

We expect to vacate Rex House and Queen Anne's Mansions at the beginning of next year. Some 2,000 staff are involved in the transfers. About 1,000 will move to Earls Court and about 1,000 to the Admiralty Main Building in Whitehall.

I am grateful for that Answer. Is this in accordance with the Select Committee's recommendations? Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is a very good thing to get Admiralty offices out of a rather old-fashioned but available building which could be used for housing? Queen Anne's Mansions were formerly flats. Is it not a good thing to get Admiralty offices out of this sort of place and to concentrate them elsewhere?

Yes, this is in accordance with the spirit of the Select Committee's recommendation. The total number of staff now to be moved out of the central London area as a result of these moves will be 1,700. I think that this is desirable on all scores. Certainly the new building will be more efficiently laid out than Queen Anne's Mansions.

Are any admirals being moved?

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the latest version of the commando-carrying Wessex will be ready for embarkation on H.M.S. "Albion" when she is commissioned.

H.M.S. "Albion" will commission with the new Wessex Mark I, which is now coming into service. The development of the later version, the Mark V, will not be completed until 1963.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what changes have been made in Admiralty practice and procedures as a result of the Report of the Zuckerman Committee on the Management and Control of Research and Development.

As I told the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on 2nd February, Admiralty practice broadly conforms to that advocated by the Committee.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when the review will be complete? Can he give any indication whether or not there will be any saving as a result of it?

I cannot give an exact date, but I hope that it will not be too long before the review is completed. It is too early to say what saving will be made, but obviously the whole object of the Zuckerman Report was to make sure that projects were backed which were financially sound, and that should help in this direction.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether Her Majesty's ships are fitted with antisubmarine weapons of performance equivalent to the United States Navy's Asroc; and whether it is intended to adopt this weapon for British use.

No, Sir. It is one of the weapons we are considering but no decision has yet been taken.

Can my hon. Friend confirm an impression being gained by some of us, which is that the very much greater efficiency of ASDIC, as developed over the last few years, has not been matched by the range and accuracy of anti-submarine weapons such as Limbo, which are available to the Royal Navy?

It is true that with the greatly increased range and efficiency of ASDIC it is necessary to have more efficient long-range antisubmarine weapons. We are attending to this, and the first generation of the Wasp helicopter will perform that function. We are considering what ASROC type of weapons might follow.

My hon. Friend has not answered my question. Can he assure the House that this matter will be dealt with in respect of surface vessels and not merely helicopters?

I shall certainly consider that point.

Would not my hon. Friend say that there is very close co-operation in the development of these types of weapon between our Government, Commonwealth Governments and the United States?

It is close but, quite frankly, I wish that it was even closer.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what are the designated duties and area of operational responsibility of Comsubeastlant in war.

The Commander Submarine Force Eastern Atlantic would in war be responsible for the operation of N.A.T.O. submarines in the Eastern Atlantic Area. He would be directly responsible to the Commander-in-Chief, Eastern Atlantic Area.

Is it not a fact that only a small fraction of these submarines are British? Is it not further a fact that a number of Polaris-firing submarines will not come under the command of Comsubeastlant? Is it not time, based on the logic of numbers and these facts, to suggest that this command should be taken over by an American officer?

It is not true to say that our slice is very small, or fractional. It is a very large fraction. In fact, it is the second largest fraction of this force. On the broader principle, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence recently announced at the Dispatch Box that we are considering the command situation, and this will certainly take into account the N.A.T.O. and Polaris questions.

Will the Minister be careful not to accept the principle suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend, that an officer representing the largest national section of that force should be in command? If he does we shall have a German in command of the troops in Europe.

I follow the logic of the hon. Member's observation, and I think that I would endorse it.

Will my hon. Friend see whether he can do something to avoid the use of these appallingly long abbreviated and combined words? Are not they really flocci-nauci-nihili-pili-ficatious?

Can the Minister say when this review is likely to be completed? Obviously the present command structure within N.A.T.O. makes nonsense. Ought not the position to have been reviewed a considerable time ago?

I will draw the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to that point.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps are under consideration for equipping the amphibious task forces with non-lethal weapons.

Stocks of dye-spray guns, tear gas and batons are available for issue to units employed on internal security duties.

Is my hon. Friend aware that important new non-lethal weapons are reaching an advanced stage of development? Is it not a fact that they could be particularly useful in the sort of confused circumstances in which our amphibious forces might be called upon to intervene?

I have noted my hon. Friend's point. I hope to make a visit to the establishment in due course and have a look at it myself.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his consultations regarding a possible move toward larger infantry regiments have now been completed; and if he will make a statement.

In February I invited Lieutenant-General Sir Roger Bower to be the chairman of a committee which I set up to study the implications of a move towards the large infantry regiment, and to make recommendations to me on the advisability, the nature and the timing of any changes. The committee has not yet completed its work, and I have therefore nothing at present to add to my statement in the debate on the Army Estimates on 8th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that delay obviously causes increasing anxieties in this matter? Can he give an assurance that any such reorganisation will enable all existing regiments to continue their existence, and that in any future overall amalgamation the Highland Brigade and the Lowland Brigade will be allowed to retain their identity?

I recognise that a question of this sort must inevitably attract speculation, but this sort of examination cannot be rushed. The last thing that I want to do is to intervene in the deliberations of a committee which I have set up to consider the matter. At this stage I would be prejudging the results of that committee's investigations if I gave my hon. Friend any undertaking. I hope that she will appreciate from my reply that there will be a very careful examination, in the way that I envisaged when I spoke in the debate on the Estimates.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not have to go far beyond simple mathematics to know that he has not enough men to fill the units, and that these units must be reduced, which means that we must have another organisation.

I do not agree with that assertion at all. If the hon. and learned Gentleman goes into the figures I do not think that he will be able to substantiate that allegation. The point is that when, in 1957, the reorganisation was planned, it was not envisaged that this was the perfect solution. All that we are doing at present is to reappraise the situation in the light of experience, for the greatest benefit of the Army.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of the Highland Brigade and the Lowland Brigade particularly, the strictures suggested by the hon. and learned Member do not apply? That was part of the point of my Question.

Would it not lead to adverse criticism as well as militating against recruitment in certain areas if the right hon. Gentleman's intention is—as he seemed to suggest—to disband regiments like the Durham Light Infantry or the Black Watch? Is it advisable to do that?

I have not mentioned the word "disband". I have merely said that I have set up a committee of very senior officers—all of whom are infantry officers—merely to reappraise the situation which arose out of the reorganisation in 1957. There is no question of disbandment at this stage. I have asked for recommendations from this committee. I do not know what it will recommend, and I do not intend to intervene in a matter which, at this stage, must be primarily for the infantry.

When the situation has been considered and reappraised, and when recommendations are made to the right hon. Gentleman, will the House have an opportunity of considering and debating them?

The committee will not make any decisions; it will merely recommend to the Army Council. I expect that the Army Council will be able to look at this matter in the summer. When I have made up my mind I shall tell the House. The question whether the House debates the matter is not one for me.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the delays in the disposal of his Department's property and land in the town of Gibraltar; and whether he will expedite their sale so as to enable civilian development to continue.

I am not aware of any avoidable delay in the disposal of War Department property and land in Gibraltar.

Is not the hon. Member aware that the Gibraltar Town Council is anxious to push ahead with development—especially housing development—in this very limited space? Is he further aware that some years ago, as a result of a deputation from this House to Gibraltar, which reported on the situation, it was agreed that the War Office should dispose of its land in the centre of Gibraltar? What is holding up that disposal?

As my right hon. Friend explained in paragraph 16 of the Statement on Defence, we have come to the decision that it is no longer necessary continually to base large land forces in the Near East. This has meant a reappraisal of the situation in Gibraltar. In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, our plan is to dispose of much of our property and to rebuild on new sites towards the southern end of the Rock, thereby releasing land in the centre of Gibraltar, which corresponds to the local wishes. We expect to press on soon.

Will the hon. Member take the local council into his full confidence in the reappraisal of the situation and in the development of future plans? That is one thing about which it complains.

asked the Secretary of State for War, why he has given instructions that recruiting should be restricted for the regiments of the Highland Brigade; and on what other regiments and arms of the Service such restrictions have been imposed.

By the beginning of April last, the Highland Brigade had reached its full strength, and its recruiting has therefore been restricted to the number necessary to replace wastage. Other regiments and arms of the Service which are similarly restricted at present are the Royals, the Greys, Queen's Dragoon Guards, Queen's Own Hussars, Queen's Royal Irish Hussars, 9th/12th Royal Lancers, 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars, 17th/21st Lancers, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Royal Tank Regiment, Green Jackets, R.E.M.E. and R.A.V.C.

Does my right hon. Friend now realise what a mistake he made in liquidating the two Highland Regiments and will he give an undertaking not to liquidate any more?

I cannot give any undertaking about the future. All I can say is that I hope that I have shown my hon. Friend that the stopping of recruitment to the Highland Regiments is not a question of treating Scottish Regiments differently from any others. They have done very well in their recruiting and have reached their ceiling; and if recruiting goes on at the present speed we may similarly have to stop other regiments from recruiting.

Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper so that we may reconcile the statement that he has now made about recruiting with the figures that are published quarterly and also with the statement of the Minister of Defence at meetings such as that recently in Athens?

I do not know why my hon. Friend should want any more information. Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence nor I have ever been loath to try to give the fullest possible figures about recruiting, and I am glad to say they are still keeping up very well.

asked the Secretary of State for War, what were the quantities of arms and ammunition purchased from this country by the United States of America, by the European Economic Community countries and by the Commonwealth, respectively, in the last financial yeas.

I regret that these figures cannot be disclosed. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 4th December, 1956.

Would my hon. Friend agree that we are buying more arms and ammunition from abroad than we are selling?

I would make two points to try to reassure my hon. Friend. One is that the overall balance of these transactions is not unfavourable to us, and the other is that my right hon. Friend's main concern, as being responsible for the Army, is to get the best weapons and equipment that he can for the Army.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that in the various agreements we have made with our N.A.T.O. allies and E.E.C. countries, these reciprocal arrangements for buying and selling arms are being kept?

We are continuously keeping an eye on that position.

asked the Secretary of State for War, if, in view of the marked shortage of trained personnel of an appropriate calibre, he will recommend the amendment of Queen's Regulations so as to remove the bar to promotion to warrant officers I of non-commissioned officers of warrant officer II rank who have attained the age of 42 years.

My right hon. Friend does not agree that Queen's Regulations should be amended. There is no shortage of warrant officers class II who are qualified for promotion to class I; and there is no age limit for promotion to the acting rank. The Queen's Regulations already provide that the age limit of 42 for promotion to the susbtantive rank may be waived in exceptional cases.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full reply. Would he not agree that, in this age of vigorous longevity, it is quite ridiculous to have any bar to promotion at so young an age as 42, and that it is unfair that a person over that age, who in ordinary circumstances would be appointed to warrant officer class I acting rank and who would serve in that capacity for perhaps a long period, should never have any prospect of enjoying the added security of full substantive rank?

My hon. Friend will recognise that we must have a balanced age structure in the Army. If there is no normal age limit for substantive promotion to warrant officer class I, the average age of promotion of the lower ranks will go up, and to block the promotion of younger men would be bad for both morale and recruitment.

asked the Secretary of State for War for how many man hours per year officers and men are engaged in the provision of the Bank of England picket from the moment the picket leaves its barracks until its return to barracks; and how much of this cost is borne by the Bank of England.

The number of man hours per year is about 114,000. The Bank of England makes a contribution in kind, and the extra cost to public funds is negligible.

In view of the fact that this operation is not part of the pageantry of the City, that it is a quite unsuitable method of defending a building such as a bank, that Parliament votes money for the purpose of defending the country and that this is a commercial undertaking, will my right hon. Friend consider the abolition of this ancient practice?

I know my hon. Friend's burning interest in this matter, but I do not think that I can give him the undertaking he seeks. The Bank of England considers that this picket contributes towards its security—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I agree. I think that we can only judge by results —and the Bank of England has not been raided since the picket was mounted.

Would my right hon. Friend consider an application from any other bank which had the same record?

I shall consider any application that my hon. Friend puts to me. I cannot give him any undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for War why a signalman, details of whom have been sent to him, who was placed in close arrest on 6th November 1961, was not brought to trial until 29th January, 1962.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already written to my hon. Friend and expressed regret that the period before trial was extended. This man, along with four others, was accused of the offence of rape, involving a foreign national. He was tried by general court martial and found guilty of indecent assault. Before the proceedings could take place the case demanded most careful investigation in Germany, and the attendance of local civil witnesses.

I appreciate all that my right hon. Friend has said. The fact that this was a serious charge should have made it all the more important for this man to have been brought to trial at the earliest possible moment. Will my right hon. Friend look into the question whether this delay of some thirteen weeks could have been shortened, and will he make sure that, as far as is possible, in future cases delays of this kind will not occur?

In so far as it is possible, I, of course, give an undertaking that in all cases of this kind there will be no undue delay. I have examined the case in detail, and I am sure that the delay was not due to any lack of urgency on the part of those responsible for handling it.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on his consultations with the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to the danger to the security of Northern Ireland in having British Army uniforms manufactured in the Republic of Ireland.

I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, and we are both satisfied that there is no real danger to the security of Northern Ireland in having British Army battledress manufactured in the Republic of Ireland.

In view of the fact that, during the past ten years, last year was the only occasion when any of these uniforms were manufactured in the Republic of Ireland, as revealed by my right hon. Friend in a Written Answer, may I ask whether there has been a change of policy?

No, Sir. It is only because we could not obtain satisfactory terms for battledress manufactured in the United Kingdom as a whole that we have been forced to go to the Republic of Ireland. Concerning future contracts, if we can get firms in the United Kingdom and, of course, in Northern Ireland, to manufacture uniforms, we shall give them preference. We go abroad only when we cannot get what we need from firms in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for War what his plans are for training troops in Kenya.

Kenya is a valuable training area and so long as troops are stationed there they will continue to make use of it for their normal training. Obviously, any arrangements for the British Army to train in the country after independence will depend on agreement being reached with the Government of Kenya, and it is too early for me to comment on that possibility.

Is it true that there is to be an increased concentration of troops for training in Kenya? Should that be so, is it not very desirable that we should not experience any difficulty as a result of the new dispensation and that therefore we must be extremely careful that we have their consent?

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not catch the first part of his supplementary question, which made the whole point.

I asked, is it true that there is to be an increased concentration of troops in Kenya for training purposes?

No. I am not aware of any increased concentration in the training of troops in Kenya. What I said represents what we hope to do at present. We hope to go on training in Kenya which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is a very valuable area.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account that it is very much in the long-term interests of people of all races in Kenya—I repeat of all races—that these bases and our troops should remain there as long as possible; and that it is particularly to the long-term benefit of the economy of Kenya?

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment on the political aspects. I should prefer not to go further than to say what I have in answer to the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make some payment from War Office funds to those officers and other ranks of the British Army who were seconded to the Ghana Government and had such secondments prematurely terminated with resulting loss.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is discussing with the Ghana Government what compensation they will pay to these officers and men. We hope that a fair settlement will be reached.

My Question was whether something could be done from the War Office. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter has gone on for months and that there are substantial amounts outstanding? Will not the War Office do something about it even though it is not possible to get a settlement from Ghana?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that that is still a hypothetical question, since the negotiations with Ghana are at present continuing.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that this has been going on for months; that people are spending out of their own money, both other ranks and officers, and that something should be done?

I have said that we are hoping for a fair settlement. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to say more while the negotiations are going on.

But let us clear this up. Surely, these people are our chaps. They went there at our request and we are responsible. Let us make it clear that that is so.

I have no doubt whose "chaps" they are. I am merely saying that since the negotiations are going on with the Government of Ghana, it would be prejudicial to them if I started to say what I thought would happen afterwards if they were not successful.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the estimated expenditure for 1962–63 on research, design and development, Vote 7, II, H, will be spent in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the estimated expenditure on ammunition, Vote 7, II, D, for 1962–63, will be spent in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the estimated expenditure on general stores, Vote 7, II, B, for 1962–63, will be spent in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the estimated expenditure on clothing, Vote 7, II, A, for 1962–63, will be spent in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the estimated expenditure for 1962–63 on engineering stores, Vote 7, II, G, will be spent in Sootland.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the estimated expenditure for 1962–63 on technical stores, Vote 7, II, F, will be spent in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the estimated expenditure for 1962–63 on mechanical transport and aircraft, Vote 7, II, E, will he spent in Scotland.

At this time of year it is not possible to make accurate estimates, because the allocation of work will depend on the results of tendering. Scottish firms will of course get the same opportunity as others to tender for items which they are in a position to produce.

On Question No. 24, the cost of the stores involved amounts, I believe, to about £5¾ million. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that that is only about a quarter of the £20 million to be provided by this House for the War Office to spend on design, research and development? Will he bear in mind the unemployment difficulties facing the Secretary of State for Scotland and help out as much as possible by ensuring not only that a proportion of the stores is bought in Scotland but that some of the experimental work and the contracts to be placed go to Scotland?

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, relatively speaking, there is not much capacity in Scotland for providing the type of equipment which the Army needs. But where the capacity does exist, firms in Scotland get the same opportunity to tender as firms in other parts of the country.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the Army is spending about £13½ on ammunition, which is about £1½ million more than last year, and also that Scotland is well equipped to fulfil whatever the Government may demand? Will he also bear in mind the unemployment position in Scotland, as he was asked to do by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)?

The hon. Gentleman is interested in ammunition, and I can tell him that Scotland has capacity for the manufacture of ammunition propellants. All our immediate requirements for propellants are supplied from Scotland. Most of the capacity for supplying the remainder of our ammunition requirements is concentrated in the Royal Ordnance factories in England and Wales.

Where it is possible to do so, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that orders and contracts are placed in Scotland where there are both the facilities and the labour to fulfil them?

Yes, Sir. So far as Army clothing is concerned, and that is what interests the hon. Lady, although most of the capacity is in London, Lancashire and Yorkshire, such Scottish firms as supply the type of goods the Army require get the opportunity to tender. And, of course, in Scotland they make the kilt.

Will the hon. Gentleman remember that during war time khaki was provided and that we can do the same in peace time?

In reference to Question No. 28, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the current estimate is approximately £1 million less than for the previous year? As this relates to rolling stock and is therefore a vital matter to Glasgow, for example, can he give any explanation of the large decrease?

Not without notice.

Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that, when it comes to raising money, Scotland contributes about one-ninth of the total income which the Government spend? And when it comes to spending money, will he try to preserve that proprotion? In dealing with the £24 million for technical stores, will the hon. Gentleman see that Scotland gets her just share?

I think that the tenor of my Answers shows that we do try to see that Scotland gets her fair share. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1960–61, in relation to the type of stores in which he is interested, substantial orders were secured by Scottish firms for Twynham hutting, about 40 per cent. of engineer stores expenditure being incurred in Scotland.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is unable to give us this information now, whereas on a previous occasion, at about the same time of year, he was able to give the information? Does not that suggest that the position regarding the amount of money spent in Scotland is so bad that the Government are not prepared to reveal it? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we are not interested merely in Scotland getting a share, but that we believe the Government ought deliberately to spend in these areas of high unemployment in order that the Government policy of developing these areas may be carried out? Will he keep that point in mind?

Replying to the first part of the supplementary question, I can assure the hon. Member that the reason I gave is the one that stands, that at this stage of the year, before tendering is further advanced, we cannot give the information being sought. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, about whether we may relax Government policy about where money is spent, that is a general question outside the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would pursue it with the President of the Board of Trade.

May I say to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, who is sitting beside him, that if he keeps in mind the point I have made about the Government deliberately spending in these areas, a great deal can be done to carry out the Government's policy for the better distribution of industry? Will he put that point occasionally to his colleagues in the Cabinet?

asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to a strength of 55,000.

The regular strength of B.A.O.R. is rising steadily. I am currently giving renewed consideration to ways and means of hastening this process. A lot depends on our recruiting campaign.

Was any undertaking given at Athens as to a particular date when we might comply with our treaty obligations?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has made this perfectly clear. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has read the synopsis of his Press conference on 9th May he will see that my right hon. Friend said:

"We are not ready to give any target dates at this stage."

asked the Secretary of State for War whether any part of the mobile reserve in this country is earmarked for service in Thailand following Her Majesty's Government's recent policy decision in this regard.

No, Sir.

Should they be required, are they capable of going there?

That is a bit hypothetical, but we have a theatre reserve in South-East Asia and we have a strategic reserve in this country designed for use anywhere in the world at short notice. It does not have to be specially earmarked for service.

In view of the fact that France is showing common sense and not sending her troops there, will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that none will be sent by us?

The hon. Gentleman will have to put that Question on the Order Paper if he wants an answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an outline of his proposals for grants in respect of winter keep and permanent grassland improvement as far as they affect Scotland.

Discussions on the details of the schemes have not yet been completed, and I regret I cannot add at present to what has been already said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I asked only for an outline of his proposals? Can he be a little more specific? Does he realise the importance of getting this legislation through before the end of M.A.P.?

The winter keep scheme is intended to give direct encouragement to the provision of winter keep in our hill and livestock rearing areas, since it is winter keep which so largely determines stocking capacity in these areas. It is hoped that the scheme will hold a fair balance between winter feed from tillage crops and from grass.

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is of tremendous importance to Scotland and to the Scottish farmer. It is important that we get the proposals contained in this suggested scheme before, as the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) has said, M.A.P. goes out of action altogether. It is of first-class importance.

I am very well aware of the time factor involved, but I cannot commit myself on dates for legislation. However, the importance of farmers knowing what is happening is fully appreciated.

Is my right hon. Friend further aware of the importance of this measure in areas like Aberdeenshire which concentrate on the production of meat but where, owing to the unprofitability of the oat crop now, in- creasing acreages are going down to grass?

I am fully aware of the importance of this to all the areas involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have so far been built in East Kilbride; how many are yet to be built; and how many of the latter are intended for occupation by children of present tenants when they grow up, marry, and wish to settle in their home-town.

The Development Corporation has already built 8,830 houses, and about 9,000 more are likely to be needed to house the planned population of 70,000. This total will no doubt include a considerable number of children of present tenants, but no specific number of future houses is earmarked for this purpose.

Is it not time that the Secretary of State gave very serious consideration indeed to the question of the future natural growth of East Kilbride? As at least half the children born in the town are likely to want to settle there, if the target figure remains at 70,000, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, no more houses ought to be built in East Kilbride at this stage but the rest should be earmarked for future growth.

We are getting into some fairly complicated mathematics in this operation, because there are many variable factors involved—for example, the age structure of the population still to come, the types of future industrial employment, and the personal choice of individuals. However, we are aware of the problem raised by the hon. Lady. Although 70,000 is the limit on the present plans, it is not necessarily the all-time limit of the town.

What is the all-time limit?

One cannot tell at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there is at present no community centre in the new town of East Kilbride; and, in view of the financial strain placed upon the local authority by its school building programme in the town, what steps he proposes to take to meet the urgent and growing need for community facilities.

I visited East Kilbride on 4th May and I am well aware of the desire for community facilities there. This is mainly a matter for the local authorities and the local voluntary organisations. One scheme for a public hall proposed by the district council has been approved in principle and consultations about another are proceeding. Any further proposals from the local authorities or local voluntary organisations will be most carefully considered and where practicable supported to the full extent of our existing powers.

Is the Secretary of State aware what nonsense he is talking when he even suggests that the local authority in Lanarkshire might be able to contribute towards the cost of community buildings? Is he not very well aware of the tremendous strain being put on the local authority by the school building programme? Is he aware that voluntary organisations in East Kilbride cannot possibly raise an amount of money even substantial enough for the Development Corporation to make up the rest? Is it not time that he himself took a direct financial step to assist in the solution of this problem, of which he is fully aware?

I am concerned about the problem. The hon. Lady knows the extent of my powers to assist. She knows that local authorities and voluntary organisations are working on these problems with my Department at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Air on how many occasions during the past three months aircraft of the Queen's Flight have been in use; and for what purposes.

In the last three months aircraft of the Queen's Flight have made thirty Royal flights and eight other flights carrying senior Ministers and other important passengers.

How many aircraft are used for this purpose? Does not the Under-Secretary think that some co-ordination could be effected and money saved if these craft were placed at the disposal of the other nationalised industries?

With regard to the establishment, at present the Queen's Flight consists of 4 Herons—1 Heron C.3 and 3 C.4 types—2 Whirlwind helicopters and 1 Chipmunk. The Flight is established primarily for short-range flights. If the hon. Member wants any information about extending the use of the Queen's Flight for other purposes, he must table a detailed Question.

In his Answer my hon. Friend referred to senior Ministers and other important people. Does he regard Ministers as all that important?

That is a matter of opinion.

Were any aircraft of the Queen's Flight recently used to convey certain high-ranking people—not Ministers—to a wedding in Greece? Was Lord Mountbatten transported in that fashion?

That is a question which should be put on the Order Paper so that I can give a detailed Answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is having discussions with the Americans with a view to reviewing the need for the continuance of Thor missile bases in this country and to agree upon a phased run down.

No, Sir.

Why not? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware, first, that this is an antiquated weapon system; secondly, that it is highly vulnerable; thirdly, that it is an aggressive weapon and not a strike weapon; and, fourthly, that it has already cost us £12 million to maintain over the past twelve months? Is it not time that a review was made so that we can gradually dismantle it?

All these supplementary questions are irrelevant to the Question on the Order Paper. Our agreement with the United States Government on the Thor weapon was published as a White Paper in February, 1958, for a period of

"not less than five years."

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that his overlord, the Minister of Defence, indicated in the last defence debate and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has indicated recently that it will be reviewed from time to time and not necessarily at the end of the five-year contract? Is it not about time that it was reviewed?

The hon. Gentleman could not have stated the case better. It is being reviewed from time to time.

Surely the Under-Secretary is not putting the proposition to the House that, if a Department makes a mistake, our defence policy must be geared to that mistake for ever and a day? Does he not recognise that there has been a great change—at any rate, one hopes that there has been a change—in the assessment of nuclear weapons since the agreement was concluded? Will he not look at this again to see whether these missiles fit into our defence requirements? It is not a question of when we signed an agreement.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right—circumstances do change. The object of reviewing these matters from time to time is to take into account the changed circumstances. The fact is that at this moment of time we are not convinced that any change is necessary. We shall go on reviewing this matter from time to time.

asked the Minister of Transport in how many of the fatal and non-fatal road accidents, respectively, which took place over the Easter week- end safety belts were in use; of what types these were; and if he will issue an analysis of the effects of safety belts in preventing or diminishing injury in the light of this evidence.

I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Is it not very important to have this information? Would it not encourage the use of safety belts? Would it not help also to show which were the most effective types of safety harness and enable Parliament to decide whether it needed any powers to control the sale of defective harness, types and quality?

The difficulty we are up against in obtaining this information is that we rely upon the police for information about what happens in accidents and not what causes accidents or what factors prevented injuries from occurring or from being serious. However, I will look at this and see if anything can be done, but we are very well aware of the value of safety harness. Arrangements are being made for all Government passenger cars and light vans to be fitted with safety belts.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us any further information about when safety belts with effective fitting equipment will be made compulsory for new cars?

No. We are at the moment engaged in discussions on an international basis to obtain the right standards for safety belts. I cannot give any further information about that without notice.

Further to the supplementary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), is it Government policy that these belts shall be compulsorily fitted on all new cars? Is not the right of choice to come into the picture?

No, Sir. It is not that the Government believe that the fitting of safety belts should be compulsory, but simply that there are a vast number of different types of safety belt. Some of these are believed to be excellent, and some are not quite so good. We believe that it is best for these matters to be settled on the basis of a British Standard as soon as we can get international agreement on the best type. We can then review the whole question.

Would not my hon. Friend consider taking power in the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] to make safety belts compulsory as soon as the Government feel that they have a satisfactory type? Would he not agree that that would go far further towards reducing accidents than some of the extra powers now sought in the Bill, which are proving so controversial?

We have to take this a little more slowly than my hon. Friend would like. I think that we should get the right type of belt before we talk about policy.