asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider discharging all National Service men who are married with family responsibilities, and where their skilled labour is required in industry.

The exemption of National Service men by categories was fully discussed during the proceedings on the Army Reserve Act, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman in particular to my right hon. Friend's remarks on 19th December, 1961 [OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1252.] But my right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider appeals by individuals.

I should like to ask the Under-Secretary and, through him, his right hon. Friend whether they will give consideration to my proposals in view of the fact that many of these young men have left behind them wives and young families, many of them in bad housing conditions and in lodgings where overcrowding is prevalent. If proof of these conditions is provided, will the Minister give consideration to such cases?

We discussed fully in the House the possibility of exempting categories, and I am sure that the House was right to confirm our view that this is not practicable, because, as the hon. Member knows, we are always prepared to consider individual cases on their merits.

Will the Minister reconsider at least exempting such men from the further six months' call-up? Is it not an added injury when such men, who many of us believe should not have been called up at all, have this extra burden imposed upon them?

Marriage and domestic responsibilities in themselves are not necessarily grounds for compassionate treatment; they have never been recognised as such throughout the period of National Service. I repeat that the important thing is that we should look at individual cases, and this, of course, we do with the greatest care.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the British National Service men in Germany so far conscripted for an extra six months have sought exemption; and how many have been granted it.

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of National Service men, at the latest convenient date, originally detained to serve the additional six months period who have been released from Her Majesty's Forces after appealing against retention.

Five hundred and ninety-one National Service men have so far submitted appeals against retention, of which forty are still being considered. One hundred and four have been released.

Is the Minister aware that most of the men who have not sought exemption have refrained because they are without hope of obtaining it and that their families, particularly in the North-West, are receiving widespread reports of bitterness about the additional six months' call-up?

If what the hon. Member says is correct, I am wholly unaware of it. Everybody who has been held back has been made fully aware of his right to appeal. As far as I am aware, these appeals are coming forward when they are genuine. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I will gladly look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any further information to give about progress on the Chieftain tank.

In my speech on the Army Estimates on 8th March, I explained that the Chieftain tank is having some teething troubles. During trials with the engine running at full power the gearbox became overheated. The cause of the overheating is known, and modifications are now being tested; these will put production back by about six months. I much regret this delay, but I am confident that the trouble will be overcome.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the tank will be entirely satisfactory at the end of this time? Can he, further, say whether any oversea s orders for it have been cancelled?

I am very hopeful that the tank will be, as we thought it would, a great success when it comes out of these trials. I confirm that so far no overseas orders have been cancelled. We have told the Federal German Republic that delivery of the prototype will be delayed by these development troubles.

This is most interesting. Will the Secretary of State tell us what overseas orders there are?

The overseas order which we at present have is from the Federal German Republic; but this has not been affected by what I have just announced.

One prototype?

Yes, but this is an overseas order and it has not been affected. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will realise that this tank looks like being a world beater. I hope that he will not cast aspersions on it, because there may well be other inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why the ratio of general officers or equivalent to total strength of the Army has risen from 1:2,887, to 1:1,586 in the last ten years; and what is his policy in this regard;

My right hon. Friend's policy is that every officer post should be established and graded on the basis of responsibility, and they are all kept under review. The ratio has risen in the last ten years because of the ever-increasing power and complexity of weapons in relation to manpower, the runout of National Service men and extensive civilianisation. General officer appointments in particular are related to the commitments of the Army rather than its strength.

Is not this a very expensive policy? Are not we approaching the stage when we shall have to have a general officer for the equivalent of every battalion? Furthermore, is there not the danger of depreciating the prestige of general officers and also depreciating the prestige of officers and of noncommissioned officers and warrant officers, who have played such a big part in the Army in the past?

No Sir; I do not think so. There are many officer appointments— for example, on the staff— which have no direct relationship to other rank strength. There is the point about civilianisation which I have already mentioned. There are officers seconded to Commonwealth forces and there are attachments to N.A.T.O. and, of course, postings to the Territorial Army. This is all bound to work in the direction which I have tried to explain to my hon. Friend.

Is not this increase in the ratio of general officers an undesirable form of inflation? It is happening throughout every form of life, including every diplomatic mission and embassy. Ought not a stop to be put to it? Surely, it has its dangers.

These posts are filled by general officers only when the responsibility which they discharge warrants an appointment of that kind. There is machinery in the War Office for reviewing establishments quite independent of the military, and this is continuously in operation.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many major exercises are planned for the British Army of the Rhine in the current year relying on both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, and non-nuclear weapons alone, respectively; and to what extent the new strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been taken into consideration in planning exercises for the British Army of the Rhine.

There will be three major exercises on the ground, and five command post exercises. All will include the use of both nuclear and conventional weapons, and take fully into account the latest strategic concepts of the Alliance.

Can the Secretary of State indicate at what level and for how long B.A.O.R. could engage in combat without resort to nuclear weapons and to what extent B.A.O.R. is trained to engage in an operation of that nature?

That is much wider than the Question on the Order Paper. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that B.A.O.R. is not dragging its feet in this respect. The training schemes are absolutely up to the minute and are quite in line with the requirement of S.A.C.E.U.R.

Would it not be wise to have at least one exercise in which there is no resort whatever to nuclear weapons, just to see that it is possible to fight a non-nuclear engagement?

I repeat that the best way of doing these things— and this is with the agreement of the Supreme Commander— is to have the exercises on a basis of both hypotheses, because one never knows what will happen. This is what we have always done and it seems to be in line with what is expected.

asked the Secretary of State for War when the Women's Royal Army Corps camp in Richmond Park will be closed; and on what date the site will be cleared.

I expect that the W.R.A.C. camp in Richmond Park will be closed and the site cleared by late autumn 1964.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be well received by the many users of this park? Can he say whether there is any chance of speeding up this programme?

I realise the very great concern there has been on the part of my hon. Friend's constituents, and I am glad that, so far as that is concerned, the end of the road is in sight. We cannot close this camp until the barracks at Mill Hill are completed, and that will not be, I am afraid, earlier than the date I have indicated.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what part Gurkha troops will play in the new model, voluntary, long-service British Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War, what are his plans for the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas; and if he will make a statement.

During the Army Estimates debate on 8th March, I told the House that the commitments which are set out in the Defence White Paper required further study before any final manpower ceilings could be determined, and that this included among other things a review of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I confirm that no decisions have yet been taken. The general issue is one which will have to be considered in the context of the future size and shape of the all-Regular Army. Much will depend on the progress of Army recruitment and on the future of Greater Malaysia. Therefore we do not propose to take any decision on this matter until next year.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he realise that the Brigade of Gurkhas has been definitely told— and I have checked this very carefully indeed— that it may expect a cut of up to 50 per cent. in its strength in the near future, and that this is causing great concern and resentment in the Brigade of Gurkhas and also in the Nepalese Government? If there is nothing in this suggestion, I should be very grateful if my right hon. Friend would absolutely contradict it, because I can tell him that it is having a very bad effect and that it would be very stupid indeed to cut off such a wonderful supply of manpower just at this time.

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who has great associations with the Gurkhas. I hope that what I have said will reassure not only the House but the Brigade of Gurkhas in the knowledge that we have taken no decision and shall not take any hasty decision.

As the Gurkhas are some of the finest fighting troops in the world and we may well need them in the future in South-East Asia, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no cut in the Brigade of Gurkhas in the foreseeable future until we are quite certain that we can reach our own recruiting target in this country?

I entirely agree with all that my hon. Friend has said about the Brigade of Gurkhas, their prowess and connection with the British Army, and their great traditions. I cannot go further than the Answer that I have given to the Question. My hon. Friend will see that it is fairly wide. I give the undertaking that the look that we are having at this problem will be very thorough indeed and that we would not take any action which would contravene what my hon. Friend has just stated.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about this and indicate that any reconsideration will not be in a downward direction? We have had conscription reintroduced and, with the recruiting programme going better than was expected, we are still short of our treaty commitments. To suggest that we are going to get rid of some of our best volunteers, now that we are going in for a volunteer Army, seems a little fantastic.

I cannot go further than I have already gone. I have given the House an undertaking that nothing will be done this year and that we are looking into the matter in the context of what has been said by me and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in connection with the Defence White Paper.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the latest White Paper policy must depend on our having troops that can be used in any part of the world should the need arise? Will he explain to the House a little more clearly whether or not one of the difficulties over the future of the Gurkhas may not be the fact that they cannot always be used where we should like them to be used?

That is one of the problems that we are having a look at with regard to the future. Up to the present time, we have not had to use the Gurkhas outside the Far East in peace time, where they have been very fully employed. This is one of the problems that we are examining.

Would my hon. Friend agree that we have used Gurkhas when we have been up against it in almost every part of the world? There is nothing at all in the suggestion that the Gurkhas can be used only in certain parts of the world. They are most ready to be used anywhere the need is greatest, and, goodness knows, we have need of them in many parts of the world today.

I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the undertaking that so long as we have need for the Gurkhas we shall do nothing to disturb their entity. I am telling the House that, among many other things, we are having an examination of the future size and deployment of the Brigade.

If we are to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to supplementary questions that he agreed with what his hon. and gallant Friend was suggesting, would he tell us exactly in what operations in South-East Asia it is proposed to use Gurkha troops? Will he bear in mind that if it has anything to do with the present dispute in Laos, he would not have the support of the House for using Gurkhas or any other troops there?

I think that the House knows what I moan. The Gurkhas have performed useful functions in Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore. I have not said anything at all about Laos. I am saying to my hon. and gallant Friend, who has a deep and abiding interest in this matter, that we are not considering tampering with the Gurkhas who have played a brilliant part in the past to their own great glory and to the benefit of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied with the operation of the agreements relating to the sale and purchase of arms and ammunition between this country and Britain's allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

Apart from the agreement which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been recently negotiating with the Federal Republic of Germany, there are no agreements about sales and purchases of arms and ammunition. As I assured my hon. Friend last week, the overall balance of transactions between this country and our allies is not unfavourable to us.

Will my hon. Friend give an ssurance that he will do the maximum he can to encourage the sale of British arms, such as the Chieftain tank, and so on, to our N.A.T.O. allies and that he will do the maximum he can to see that there is maximum uniformity in weapons within the N.A.T.O. alliance?

Yes, certainly, within the accepted limits of my right hon. Friend's policy.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many miners or ex-miners have been recruited in Scotland in each of the last four years; and how many of them have been from Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and Fifeshire, respectively.

The figures for miners recruited in the whole of Scotland are as follows:

Why cannot the Minister get the figures for each county? Is he aware that there is a feeling that because of the rundown in the mining industry miners are increasingly turning to the Armed Forces— partly because of that, and partly because the Army is not subject, like the mining industry, to the pay pause policy of the Government? Will he seek to get more detailed figures than those which he has given to the House, because he has no answered the Question on the Paper?

I could give the figures by recruiting offices, which correspond broadly, but not exactly, to the counties. I will gladly, if the hon. Member wishes, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As for the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I do not think the figures bear out his imputation, because the trend of those recruited from the mines has been falling sharply, particularly between 1960 and 1961, whereas the overall figure for recruiting in Scotland is up by 20 per cent. Therefore, I do not think the figures substantiate what the hon. Member is trying to say.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether all volunteers wishing to enter regiments for which recruiting is at present restricted are absorbed into other units.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many men, who were suitable as recruits, were not accepted as such in recent months because of restrictions on recruiting in the units which they sought to join.

Volunteers for regiments and corps for which recruiting is restricted are encouraged, so far as possible, to join other units. But they cannot be forced to join against their wishes. I regret that I cannot give an estimate of the numbers of those who have been affected in this way, but there is no evidence that there has been any serious loss of recruits to the Army.

In the present state of recruitment does my right hon. Friend think that it is really acceptable to lose would-he recruits to the Army because some regiments may be larger than others? Is not a man in uniform with a weapon in his hands in the wrong regiment better than no man at all? Will my right hon. Friend confirm his support for the principle of reinforcing success, as has been done with such success by the Admiralty in the case of the Royal Marines?

There is nothing new in this. There have always been recruiting ceilings, even before the war, and they are set by the general manpower ceiling imposed by Vote A. All that has happened is that for the past twenty years it has not presented any problem because we have had conscription. If we are to have a balanced Army we must have a balanced intake. I think we have got it about right.

Surely the House should be told how many men were involved? How many would-be recruits were refused? Could not the seventeen units referred to last week be altered? Were any National Service men retained for an extra six months in those seventeen units and the Highland Brigade?

I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I have no evidence of any serious loss, but I cannot give accurate figures. I have not got the figures. It is very difficult to break them down. But there is no evidence of serious loss of would-be recruits. This is a well-established form of recruiting. One of the difficulties is that recruiting varies from year to year and from month to month. A unit which does well one minute may not do so well the next. I am anxious not to alter the procedure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my supplementary question? Were any National Service men retained in those seventeen units and the Highland Brigade?

I am afraid I shall have to have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for War what criterion is used to assess the exigencies of the Service when considering applications from officers and other ranks for discharge for the purpose of nomination to Parliamentary elections.

As nominations for Parliamentary elections of members of the Armed Forces have so far been rare, it has been possible to give a generous interpretation to exigencies of the Service.

I know that there was a precedent in the case of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) referred to as making a private convenience of the Mother of Parliaments— but that was to get into the Army, not to get out of it. In this case, now that it is becoming clear that there is a cut-rate back door to the Army, at £ 150 instead of the more usual £ 200, are not ballot papers for by-elections about to get a bit unwieldy?

It seems to me that if I am to exercise my powers correctly I should not put any undue difficulties in the way of people who genuinely want to stand for Parliament, when serving in the Army—

Especially Liberals.

I do not know about Liberals. It may well be that I shall have to offer a bounty to hon. Gentlemen opposite later on. However, I think it would be wrong for me to try to interpret this anything but loosely. Therefore, I shall be very anxious not to change the present Regulations unless there were widespread misuse of the privilege.

Is it within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that in 1945 Service candidates were given three weeks' leave of absence without pay if they wanted to be candidates, and that if they got into the House they went out of the Army, and that if they did not get into the House they reported back for duty— an excellent arrangement by which the Army and the House of Commons both benefited? Cannot we have the same system now?

I do not know that I can go the whole way with the hon. Gentleman, but that was under special war-time legislation. If the hon. Gentleman would prefer to go back to that he should consult his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who changed the Regulations and brought them into line with what I have just announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will now use his powers under Section 48 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, to direct Caithness County Council to prepare and submit to him forthwith proposals for the rehousing of Mr. William Calder, of Castletown, a disabled ex-Service man of the First World War, who is living in a house without water, lighting or sanitation.

I have no power to issue directions about an individual case. The county council's progress in rehousing families from unfit houses generally is not such as to call for my intervention.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this applicant has spent all his life, except the years he spent in the Army in the First World War, in agriculture? He is a farm worker, and he is now 70 years of age. Surely there must be something radically wrong? I have been trying for over two years to get this man a house, but with out success. I hope that the Secretary of State can intervene.

I am afraid I am advised that it would be quite outwith my power to intervene in an individual case of this kind, but doubtless the hon. Member's remarks will be noted by the local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in resolving the financial complexities referred to in his letter early in 1962 to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, arising from the report of the Joint Working Party, set up by him, to plan the provision of a pontoon dock for Aberdeen; and when the construction of that pontoon dock will commence.

I understand that the joint working party— which was set up by the Aberdeen Harbour Board and not by myself— is considering a report by a firm of industrial consultants who were engaged to examine the problem of dock replacement with particular reference to costs, and economic viability.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that it is thoroughly unpatriotic, uneconomic and ridiculous on the part of the Government to deny work, or money for important work, of this sort and yet seek to provide grants and loans for foreign shipyards, thereby driving British shipyard workers out of employment, and will he take urgent steps to see that this pontoon dock is started at once?

No. As I explained in my original Answer, it is a matter still for the Aberdeen Harbour Board. I have not said the Government would not supply money to help the building of it. The position is that the Government would consider the question of assistance under the Local Employment Act so far as the undertaking would provide additional employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cars have been distributed to disabled war pensioners in Scotland as a result of the extension of the scheme in 1960.

One hundred and sixty-six.

In view of the fact that the Government appear to have completed this particular programme on time, would the right hon. Gentleman approach his hon. and right hon. Friends to see whether this scheme could now be extended to miners and other industrial workers?

This question was fully debated two years ago and again as recently as 29th January last. The position remains that the provision of cars as part of this preferential treatment is reserved for war pensioners, and the Government really cannot undertake to provide cars for N.H.S. patients.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with the fishing and shipbuilding industries in Scotland before agreeing to the decision to allow the building of fishing vessels in foreign shipyards with the aid of subsidies provided by the British taxpayer.

None, Sir.

That is a surprising Answer. How does the Secretary of State know that this will best serve the interests of the fishing fleets, as was stated by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a Written Answer on Monday, if he did not consult the fishing industry? Is this another case of the man in Whitehall knowing best?

The hon. Gentleman's Question has two parts. Consultation with the shipbuilding industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. This cannot be to the detriment of the fishing industry and, therefore, I did not consider that any consultations were called for.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that his right hon. Friend stated in a Written Answer on Monday that the Government decided that consultations were not necessary because the decision was in the interest of the British fishing industry? Is not this going much too far? If a decision like this is to be made, ought not the industries concerned to be consulted before it is made?

The hon. Gentleman has referred to a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to which I would not add. I have explained my position in regard to that part of the Question relating to consultations with the shipbuilding industry, and I have given my view about consultation with the fishing industry.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that this decision is of very great importance to the wellbeing of Scotland as a whole? Had he consulted shipbuilders who happen also to be trawler owners, he would have been informed that the shipbuilders themselves are against this decision because they already have to compete against hidden subsidies to foreign competitors and, as trawler owners, they are against it because they do not like to see their own taxpayers' money used to subsidise foreign firms.

I have sufficient faith in the skill and ability of Scottish boat builders to believe that they can hold their own with anyone in the world.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand what a monstrous mistake he has made in this decision? Is not he aware of the poverty, unemployment and worrying problems which the smaller shipyards throughout Scotland are experiencing at present? Why has he proposed this misuse of public money, taxpayers' money, to subsidise foreign yards to build ships of a type which are indigenous to Scotland and which should be provided by Scottish workmen?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the object of these subsidies is to help the fishing industry. As I have said, I do not for a moment accept that Scottish— or British— yards cannot compete with anyone in the world.

May a Welshman representing an English constituency intervene, since this subject goes much wider than just Scotland? This is a matter of confidence in the Government's ability to look out for the interests of the shipbuilding industry, which is highly suspect. Does not my right hon. Friend understand that this decision is a regrettable one, whether the yards be Scottish or English yards? Would it help my right hon. Friend if some of us on this side were to put down a Question so that this decision could be reversed next wek?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Questions directed to me relate to Scotland, and I should not be right in entering into other discussions at this moment.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

There is another Question today which goes right into the same subject matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what regard was had to the difficulties facing the smaller shipbuilding yards in Scotland which build the inshore fishing fleets when it was decided to make grants and loans available for vessels built in foreign ports.

These grants and loans are given for the benefit of the fishing industry, but, of course, the position of the smaller shipbuilding yards was taken into account.

All of us share my right hon. Friend's faith in the Scottish boat building industry, but what these people are afraid of is hidden subsidies assisting foreign yards to build our kind of boats at a disadvantage to ourselves. Will my right hon. Friend take some action to ensure that the same kind of assistance and work is given to these yards to do the work which they do so well?

I sincerely hope that they will go on getting their full share of orders. I am advised that, if there were a question of a problem created by subsidised foreign yards, it would be open to the shipbuilding industry here to make an application under our antidumping legislation if it were suffering from or were threatened with material damage as a result of ships being built by and purchased from subsidised yards.

As this matter affects not only Scotland but the whole country, will the Secretary of State explain why these orders are going abroad? Is it because foreign yards are able to build the ships at lower cost after tenders have been sent out, or is there some other reason such as the question of delivery? What is the reason why the ships are not being built in this country?

This is the difficulty if I get drawn too far on this question. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about something which has not yet happened. This is something which will happen in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will it?"] I do not say that these orders will go abroad in the future, but the questions relate to something which has not yet happened.

How will antidumping duties be applied in restricting boats being built abroad and then being sold in this country? My right hon. Friend made some mention of it, but how will the thing work, and will it be effective?

That is a matter which is under consideration, and the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he hopes that British shipyards will receive their share in the future, but is not he aware that every ship built under the grants and loans scheme has been built by British shipyards so that any reduction of orders must by that amount mean less work for British shipyards and British workers?

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so certain that they will not be able to compete and get the orders.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because of the difficulties facing shipbuilding generally, it is not only the smaller shipyards referred to in the Question which are affected but also larger shipyards which now rely on trawlers for orders because they cannot get the bigger boats which they used to build in the past? Does not my right hon. Friend realise that this inexplicable decision will adversely affect Scottish shipyards?

I do not think that I can add to the replies I have already given.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fishing vessels of 40 ft. overall length or over have been built in Scottish yards in each of the last five years; and how many are now being built.

Since the beginning of 1957, 373 fishing vessels of 40 ft. overall length and over have been built with grant aid in Scottish yards and 16 are in course of construction. With permission, I shall circulate the numbers for each year in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that I have no information about the number built without grant aid.

Do not the figures indicate that, since many of the shipbuilding yards are in development districts, there is an urgent need for my right hon. Friend to stimulate the building of ships in these yards at this moment?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would not be right to stimulate the building of fishing boats if there are not fish for the boats to catch or if the owners do not consider that there are.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very large body of opinion in this country which wishes to see this country's fishery limits extended so that the fish would be caught by British boats instead of by foreign boats? If that were done, should not we be able to build more boats?

That is definitely another question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any falling off in the number of boats being built at present has been due to policies adopted by the White Fish Authority, backed by the right hon. Gentleman, to restrict the number of boats built under these schemes? While that situation obtains, is it not all the more difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman has made the decision to which we have been referring?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the White Fish Authority had consultations with the trawler owners before coming to its decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the international obligations that compelled him to agree to allow fishing vessels for British owners to be built in foreign shipyards with the assistance of British subsidies.

This decision was taken by the Government having regard to the interests of the fishing industry and our international obligations. These obligations are that, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association, special facilities to purchasers may not be restricted to purchases in the country giving those facilities.

First, how does the right hon. Gentleman know that it was in the interests of the British fishing industry when he did not consult the industry? Secondly, if this was done, not with a view to helping the fishing industry, as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, but to satisfy the needs of countries other than Britain, does not he think that, in view of this iniquity, he should reconsider it and cancel it immediately?

Clearly, a number of considerations were involved in this decision. I do not think that I can add to what I have said in answer to a previous Question.

Although my right hon. Friend is getting the thick end of the stick this afternoon, he was in various answers mentioned two other Ministers— the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture. Will he therefore reconsider the whole matter in consultation with those Ministers and with the Cabinet?

I have carefully noted all that has been said, but I cannot add to the replies which I have given.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of all these replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

I am in difficulty, because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) also gave notice in respect of something which I think he described as "this matter". Can the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) help by confining his notice to a numbered Question?

On a point of order. Since notice has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), in obedience to my Front Bench I will withdraw my notice.

I should still be assisted if the hon. Member related the notice to a particular Question.

I will direct my notice to Questions Numbers 26 and 31, Mr. Speaker.

I will accept it in relation to Question No. 31. The other Question is out of time.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many protests he has received from local authorities concerning the proposal to give grants and loans to foreign shipyards in respect of vessels and engines built for British owners; and whether he will consult with such authorities to ascertain their detailed views on the matter.

So far I have received protests from eight local authorities regarding the Government's decision to make grants and loans available to our fishing industry for vessels and engines built abroad. This decision has been taken in the interests of the fishing industry, as I said before, and because of our international obligations, and the question of consultation with local authorities does not arise.

Does not this Answer and several other Answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given this afternoon show the flat-footed attitude and approach of the Government on this issue and an arrogant disregard of the democratic processes even to the point of the form in which the announce ment was made to the House originally? In view of the opinions expressed on both sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps within the Cabinet to rescind this decision?

It is always a very nice point to decide how many people one should consult or should not consult before coming to a decision as a Government. I am sometimes criticised for consulting too many people. In answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I cannot add to what I have already said.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the building of the second extension to Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, will start; and when he expects it to be ready for use.

The tenders for this project have just been received by the regional hospital board. The precise starting date will be settled with the successful tenderer. As I told the hon. Member on 7th February, the present estimated construction period is two and a half years.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a grave shortage of geriatric beds, particularly in Fife, which will not be relieved until this hospital is completed? Will he take every step possible to ensure the most rapid completion of the hospital in Kirkcaldy.

I am very anxious to see this hospital completed as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations he is making into the possibilities of experiments with teams of teachers as a means of making the most efficient use of trained teachers in Scottish schools.

I am certainly anxious to see our teaching resources deployed to the maximum advantage. Teaching in secondary schools is already largely organised on a team basis, but I am sure that education authorities and head teachers will keep any further possibilities of this kind in mind.

Will the Secretary of State, in consultation with the approate educational bodies, look more closely into some of the interesting experiments carried out in America and in some schools here in using large lecture groups for some lessons and small tutorial groups for others? Is he aware that they seem to have shown quite remarkable economies in manpower Where they have been tried?

I know that these experiments are extremely interesting and should be studied very carefully. Ultimately, I think, it is a matter for the directors of education and head teachers to decide how to follow them up, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now completed his study of the Report of the Toothill Committee; and what steps he is taking to implement its recommendations.

Some of those recommendations of the Toothill Report which concern the Government raise issues of policy which go very wide and are still being examined jointly by the Departments most directly concerned. A statement on the Report will be made as soon as practicable.

The Secretary of State has had this Report for seven or eight months. Is it not time that this matter was treated much more urgently in view of the very serious situation in Scotland? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have the results of the considerations?

I should not like to be tied to a definite date yet. I shall certainly say something about this very complex matter before the Summer Recess. The Committee made many recommendations, as the hon. Gentleman knows. A number of outside bodies are involved as well as Government Departments. While I shall not reply for the outside bodies, I must take some of their views into consideration.

Will the Secretary of State give the House an opportunity fully to consider the recommendations in the Report in order to assist him in implementing them?

I understand that there is every likelihood that, as in previous years, there will be a full debate on the Floor of the House on employment in Scotland under the arrangements which existed in previous years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communication he has had from the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland district regarding the recently announced price increases for electricity; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland district approved the recently announced electricity price increases for its area.

The Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland district wrote to me setting out its objections to the Board's proposed tariff increases and on 11th May I met a deputation from the council. After considering its arguments I wrote to it explaining that by relating the Board's financial objective under the White Paper (Cmnd. No. 1337) not to the capital employed but to the increases in tariffs which would have to be made by the South Board, I had taken account of the different circumstances of the North of Scotland Board's area. I also emphasised the importance of the Government's policy of ensuring that the finances of the nationalised industries should be put on a sound basis and that for this reason I could not accept its representations.

Is not this the first time the Consultative Council has made representations against a price increase, and has not it done so because the Hydro-Electric Board did not want to increase its prices but was forced to increase them by the Secretary of State? Is not this a thoroughly regrettable decision and has it not caused considerable disquiet throughout Scotland, particularly with regard to the effect it is likely to have on Highland development and industry?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that this is the first time the Consultative Council has made representations in this respect. Every other electricity board in Great Britain has increased its tariffs since the last increase of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and, as the latest fixing of the Board's target maintains its relative position in comparison with charges in other areas, this should not introduce any new factor affecting depopulation or the attraction of new industry.

Mr. Millan.

rose—

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He was so far from his usual place that I failed to see him.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Electricity Board that we are discussing is very far from other electricity boards. It also has special responsibilities to industry. We therefore expect it to be treated differently when it comes to charges. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these increases have caused considerable dismay and will undermine the good work done by the Board with the very reasonable co-operation of the Consultative Council? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?

No, I will not reconsider it. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Answer which I have given, he will see the reasons for the decision which I made. The effect of this increase in charges on an average house in the area is 6d. a week, on an average small farm 10½ d. a week, and on an average large farm not more than 3s. 6d. a week.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from consumers concerning the price increases recently announced by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.

None Sir, though I did receive representations on behalf of consumers from the Electricity Consultative Council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that consumers are supposed to be represented by the Consultative Council? What is the use of this Council if, for the first time in fourteen years it disagrees with an increase in price, the Secretary of State overrides both it and the Board itself? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by his decision to pay attention to accountants more than to crofters, he is betraying the original spirit of the Act?

No, Sir. What I said earlier is correct— that in improving the economic scene in the Highlands we must build on sound foundations. That I am determined to do.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board regarding its financial obligations under the White Paper, Command Paper No. 1337.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board before the Board announced its recent price increases; and whether he took account of the effect of these increases on Highland development and industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial objectives have been set for the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board under the White Paper, Command Paper No. 1337.

The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has agreed, pending the Mackenzie Committee report, to apply such tariff changes as will produce a percentage increase in the income derived from its own consumers similar to that which is to be achieved by the South of Scotland Electricity Board. In suggesting a financial objective in these terms I had in mind the special circumstances of the North of Scotland Board and the fact that an increase of this kind preserves the relative position of the North of Scotland Board's area in such matters as Highland development and the attraction of industry.

Will the Secretary of State explain exactly what this means to electricity consumers in terms of money? Is it not misleading to say that the Board has agreed these financial objectives since this price increase, which it is putting into operation because of the financial objectives, is something which it desperately did not want to enforce?

To be fair to everyone concerned, the Board was very concerned about this matter, and I explained fully to the Board the reasons for the White Paper and these financial objectives, and it agreed to carry out the policy which I explained.

As the Board itself and the Consultative Council are both opposed to the line being taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and since both are responsible bodies, does not this suggest that he, in his concern for financial considerations, is in danger of defeating the purpose for which this Board was set up?

No, Sir. In any efforts to improve the economy of the Highlands and the whole of Scotland we must be certain that we are building on solid economic foundations. I do not think that what would amount to a concealed subsidy is the right way to do it.

The right hon. Gentleman has not given us a figure, but if one relates this increase to the increase made by the South of Scotland Electricity Board, it means a 10 per cent. rise. Is he aware that the then hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George), on the Second Reading of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, indicated that he did not think that electricity by itself would bring new industry to the Highlands and that something more would be required? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present Chairman of the Hydro-Electricity Board then said that it would need cheap electricity? How will this increase assist the Chairman in his efforts?

I do not think that it has ever been argued that it should be uneconomic electricity.

As the Board made a surplus of £1¾ million last year, is it not wrong that it should be forced to impose a further price increase?

If the hon. Gentleman will study the capital cost of the Board's operations, and relate it to the White Paper on the financial and economic obligations of the nationalised industries, he will realise the reasons for what I have done.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the South of Scotland Electricity Board regarding the timetable for the construction and the cost of Hunterston nuclear power station.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital sum originally authorised to the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the Hunterston nuclear power station; when authorisation was given; what capital sum has been spent to the latest convenient date; what is the estimated capital sum to completion; when completion is anticipated; what estimate he has made of the cost of electricity generation per unit, and the cost per kilowatt installed in respect of this power station, compared with orthodox thermal coal burning stations and hydroelectric power stations in Scotland, both as at the latest convenient dates; and whether he will now make a further statement concerning progress in construction at Hunterston.

The South of Scotland Electricity Board keeps me generally informed about all aspects of the progress of Hunterston. I am advised by the Board that the pressure test on the first reactor vessel will take place in a few days' time. The first reactor is expected to go critical next year; it should be in full production in mid-1964 and the second at the end of the same year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the blame for the mess, muddle and mismanagement which has characterised the building of this project must rest squarely on the shoulders of the Government? In view of that, how can he charge to electricity consumers the cost of the Government's errors?

The hon. Gentleman has made a number of statements which I do not accept. I do not accept the figures of costs he has produced nor almost any of the details in his supplementary question. It is extremely difficult to deal at Question Time with that form of supplementary question.

Whilst dissociating myself at once from the statement by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that there has been muddle and mismanagement in this very important venture, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not agree that the highly complex construction of a major nuclear power station of this kind involves largely an element of experimentation and that it was nearly impossible accurately to assess capital cost at the outset?

I certainly agree that there have been difficulties and delays at this station. There has been a series of practical and design difficulties which are most regrettable; but apart from labour troubles on the site, such difficulties as those indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) are really inseparable from the most effective development of the new techniques which have been evolved in constructing this station. If my hon. Friend studies the information which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and lets me know if he wants more, I will try to supply it.

Is this not proving to be a disgraceful and quite regrettable episode in the development of a new industry under this Government's guidance? The project itself is not all that new. It is not a revolutionary technique and much of the development of the station came from designs well known before the start. It is now estimated that this will cost £67 million, which is much more than the original estimate. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it? Who is to pay the excess over the original estimate?

The hon. Gentleman assumes a figure of cost that I do not accept. If he works out an estimated cost from my answers, he will get nearer the point. It is correct to say that the final cost cannot yet be determined, but if he looks at the figures I have already given, he will see that the cost will not greatly exceed £165 a kilowatt.

In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest, opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give further information on the date for the commencement of building of the technical college at Motherwell.

The position is unchanged since my reply to the hon. Member on 31st January, 1962, when the education authority's estimated date of commencement was given as February, 1964.

Since the right hon. Gentleman is considering the introduction of compulsory day-release classes, and since Lanarkshire is inadequately equipped to handle such classes, will he do very much better than he has up to now? This college should have been started in 1960 and finished in 1963. The date he has given for the commencement is hopelessly short of the needs of the area.

The date of starting and of completion of this project is not in my hands. I am, of course, involved, but the decision is not for me in this respect. I understand that the local education authority is proceeding with the planning stage, and I have not yet received a final submission from it. I shall continue to do all I can, but this is essentially a matter for the education authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what consultations he has had, and with whom, regarding the value of the Thor missile sites in this country.

This is a matter which I review regularly with my advisers.

Is it not time that we ran down these weapons and their bases in this country? Is it not the case that Thor is aggressive in intent, is antiquated, and is a first-strike weapon which costs £ 6 million a year to maintain? Is it not time that we got rid of it?

No, Sir, I do not think so. As I have frequently tried to explain, so long as the threat to these islands is predominately from manned aircraft, the warning time is considerable, and Thor is an effective second-strike weapon.

Will my right hon. Friend treat with suspicion advice on this subject from members of the Labour Party, whose declared policy it is to neglect and eventually to abolish the independent nuclear deterrent, if given a chance?

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the arguments for and against maintaining, Thor are wholly different from the one about whether we should have an independent nuclear deterrent? They are quite separate issues and it is false to mix the two.

I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends for some reason see advantages in having a weapon under American custody.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said in the defence debate recently that he was quite prepared to see the V-bomber force run down almost out of existence? The right hon. Gentleman wants the best of both worlds.