asked the Minister of Defence what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the control of the British nuclear deterrent and its rôle within the Western alliance.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) and Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 25th July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are glad that he is as resolved as his predecessor to keep an independent deterrent on our side of the Atlantic? Will he ensure that everything possible is done to make even more widely known the terrible effectiveness of the V-bomber force and its necessity to British independence and international peace?

I think that it should be widely known that the V-bomber force in this country, of which we are deeply proud, plays a great rôle in preserving world peace.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what British nuclear deterrent is left over which Britain has independent control? Arising out of that, is it true, as reported in the Press, that Blue Water is to be abandoned?

On the question of the nuclear deterrent, the V-bomber force is a force over which we have complete control. I do not think one need go further than that.

Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to stress the technical efficiency of the V-bombec force? Does he agree that in relation to the total defence budget and also with regard to other less important items on which this country spends large sums of money this deterrent is secured at an extremely reasonable price indeed and gives very good value for money?

Perhaps it is sufficient to say that we have got the V-bomber force and we intend to keep it.

While not questioning at all the technical efficiency of the force, because I think that it is technically very efficient, may I ask if the Minister's answers imply that the British Government are not participating in the N.A.T.O. discussions following the Athens Conference to work out a form of joint control within the Alliance?

It is a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one.

asked the Minister of Defence whether Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, were consulted on President Kennedy's proposal that General Lyman Lemnitzer should succeed General Norstad as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, Europe; what is the procedure for consultation on such appointments; and whether he will make a statement.

The appointment of a N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander requires the approval of the Governments represented on the North Atlantic Council. Her Majesty's Government were consulted about General Lemnitzer's nomination for the appointment of S.A.C.E.U.R.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that full consultation takes place between the allies before names are bandied about?

I am absolutely satisfied that Her Majesty's Government were consulted.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the success of the recruiting drive for the Armed Forces, he will now arrange for more applications by National Service men for release on compassionate grounds to be granted.

Applications for compassionate release will continue to be considered on their merits.

Is the Minister aware that a large number of people, including some of my constituents, feel that there is very great hardship because their cases are not being considered on their merits? Surely, as recruiting is going better than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, he can now ask those who are examining the cases to relax some of their difficult opposition to any application on compassionate grounds?

I cannot deal with individual cases without understanding the particular aspects of each one, and that, I think, would be more appropriate to the Service Ministers, but the cases will continue to be considered on their merits.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the official Anglo-American talks in London on the detection of underground test explosions.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prme Minister to Questions by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 17th July. I have nothing to add.

Is it not a fact that recently a small underground test in France was detected by an American station 5,000 miles away? Further, since it is understood that both American and British scientists now agree that small tests underground can be detected by existing means, what is preventing acceptance of the proposals made by the neutral nations?

The fact that some advances have, happily, been made in the detection of underground tests, and in distinguishing them from earthquakes and other disturbances, is important, and its importance should not be under-rated, but it is not, of course, a complete solution to the problem; it is only part and not all.

asked the Minister of Defence what advice he has received from his scientific advisers regarding the availability of instruments which are able to detect all underground tests within a range of 1,400 miles.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained on 17th July in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, there have been certain improvements recently in detection techniques and in the methods of assessing the results. This is not the same thing as the invention of an instrument to detect underground events infallibly, or to distinguish all earthquakes from nuclear explosions.

In view of reports in reputable newspapers that a considerable advance has been made in the recording of underground explosions, whether by earthquake or otherwise, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government gave the nation a little more information on the subject, more especially as the question of on-site inspections appears to be the main difficulty in the way of securing a nuclear test ban agreement? Can we not have some information of the advances that have been made?

Very full statements have already been made on this subject. I do not think that I can really add to them, but can only repeat that they are important advances but not a complete solution of the problem.

Can the Minister say how many seismic events took place in the Soviet Union in 1961 about which there was any doubt whether or not they were of nuclear origin?

Certainly not without notice.

asked the Minister of Defence what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the period for which Thor missiles are to be retained in this country.

We have decided that the arrangements under which Thor missiles are stationed in this country should be brought to an end during the course of next year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that information will be very widely welcomed, at least on this side of the House, as it is something we have urged on the Government for a long time? We are very glad indeed that the Government have come to this conclusion.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the United States Government regarding a reappraisal of the military necessity for the United States strategic air force bases in this country.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 26th July.

Would not the Minister agree that the new missiles that the Americans are now installing cover all the targets that could be covered from bases in this country, bringing nearer, at any rate, the day when these American strategic bases will not be any longer necessary? Is he aware that whereas we on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to support American bases of this kind as long as they are necessary, we are now beginning to doubt whether this is any longer true?

The precise disposition of the nuclear strike force—how much by missiles and how much be aircraft—is a matter of military judgment at any particular time, but I am very glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the party opposite fully supports American bases in this country.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say that these bases are becoming obsolete by reason of American rocket developments? Are not they— as well as, perhaps, the V-bomber bases —becoming obsolete because of Russian developments? It surely is the case that this island is no longer very useful as a deterrent base.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we could dispense with all bases in this country for a nuclear strike, I think that the answer is clearly "No"; and that answer would be given whether in the United States or here.

asked the Minister of Defence what new proposals he has for reducing defence expenditure.

My problem is to keep within bounds its tendency to rise.

Is the Minister, in his desperate effort to keep expenditure within bounds, aware that defence expenditure has gone up by over £200 million since he resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he thought that defence expenditure was too high, and talked about it being one of the causes of a slithering from one crisis to another and bringing the value of the £ from 20s. to 12s.? Is he now to devote all his energy to this matter, and can we rely on him to keep a very vigilant eye on defence expenditure?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is nothing desperate about my activities. I am giving calm consideration to the subject.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his first duty is to see that the country is properly defended?

It is. I also have the duty to see that the money that is available for defence is spent to the best advantage.

In view of reports in The Times today, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the abandonment of Blue Water is among the measures of economy that he is considering?

I exclude no possibility from an examination of measures of economy.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of giving up our independent nuclear deterrent, or of sharing it with other countries?

That is a different question, but I have already made it quite plain that we have a British nuclear deterrent, and we are keeping it.

Meantime, can the Minister of Defence say when defence expenditure in this country was last reduced?

A very long time ago.

asked the Minister of Defence what is now the United Kingdom's daily expenditure on defence in Germany.

About £287,000.

Is not this a splendid opportunity for the Minister of Defence to wield the axe, and could he not be inspired by the speeches of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer; that is, before he underwent this resurrection?

I draw my inspiration from many sources, not excluding the hon. Member, but I do not think that withdrawal of our troops from Europe would make a great contribution to economy in defence costs.

asked the Minister of Defence what consultations there have been with General Norstad and his successor in regard to a nuclear policy for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in the light of the possession of independent nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom and France.

General Norstad's views on nuclear policy are well known to the North Atlantic Council. No doubt the Council will wish to know the views of his successor in due course.

Will the Minister of Defence resist any attempt to create a N.A.T.O. nuclear organisation? Is he aware that while I am somewhat sceptical of the value of what is called the independent nuclear deterrent, I would rather have that than have us place the whole of our nuclear defence in the hands of N.A.T.O., which would include various Continental countries about which I am very suspicious?

I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions in mind.

Is the statement in the Question accurate—that France has an independent nuclear weapon?

She certainly has the capacity to make an independent nuclear weapon, and the knowledge of how to do so.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will arrange for British forces stationed in Berlin to receive the same overseas allowance as is paid to our forces stationed in the German Federal Republic.

No, Sir. Local overseas allowance is intended to compensate for essential extra expenditure incurred in living overseas as compared with living in the United Kingdom. The cost of living in Berlin is no higher than in the United Kingdom.

Will the Government give up this fiction that the troops in Berlin are living in exactly the same conditions as if they wore living in barracks in this country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that there is strong feeling among the troops there, particularly the Air Force, that when they are transferred from another part of Germany to Berlin their costs are the same and their responsibilities are greater yet Her Majesty's Government do not make any allowance for the difference?

I think that there are certain differences in these matters. For example, in Berlin they receive family rations and domestic services at concessional rates which they do not get in the rest of Germany.

asked the Minister of Defence why Her Majesty's Government pays their forces in Berlin in an artificial currency: and if he will withdraw British Armed Forces vouchers.

The British Armed Forces Special Vouchers with which troops in Berlin are paid are not an artificial currency: they are fully negotiable within the limits defined on them. The arrangement has proved to be generally advantageous.

Is the Minister aware that the other two Western occupying Powers—France and the United States— have abandoned the idea of this special currency for their troops and pay them in their own currencies? Is he aware that a great number of troops feel that there is some "fiddle" in this arrangement? If there are reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should continue the cost of providing these special vouchers, will he give the House a full and proper explanation of why the British Government feel that this expenditure is necessary?

My information is that it is generally regarded as fair and acceptable, but if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) would like to have a word with me about it some time I should be only too pleased.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if what the men call this "Mickey Mouse" currency in fact helps us? Is it an economy or would it cost more, or would it make no difference at all from our point of view, to maintain a special currency which we do not maintain in the rest of Germany?

It is not an unknown arrangement to pay troops who are in an operational or near-operational rô1e with currency of this type. If the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has any difficulty in understanding this, I will willingly discuss the matter with him.

asked the Minister of Defence what is his policy for co-ordination of expenditure by the three Service Departments on permanent buildings which may become redundant within a few years if the policies of Her Majesty's Government for progressive disarmament succeed.

The Services' building programmes are kept under constant review in relation to long-term needs. No useful purpose would be served by a special review at the present time in the light of discussions at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of Question No. 20 on the Order Paper and the Answer which will be given to it, because there is a proposal to build a large number of houses for the Culdrose Airfield in the small Borough of Helston? As houses are an investment for a century, would it not be wise for them to be sited in places where they are likely to be absorbed by the civil population if we get disarmament within a reasonable period?

I will certainly have a look at that particular point. While I wish the disarmament conference every success, I do not think that we can look to it to solve all our housing problems in this way.

asked the Minister of Defence how closely the defence policy and nuclear strategy of Her Majesty's Government are integrated with those of the United States' Administration and Strategic Air Force; and for how much longer Thor missiles and United States strategic bases are to be retained in this country.

Very closely. On the subject of the Thor missiles, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I have just given to the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).

In view of the first part of that very informative Answer, I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could say whether he has noted that passage in Mr. McNamara's recent speech which has been interpreted by most commentators, in Washington and elsewhere, as indicating a change from a second-strike to a first-strike nuclear strategy, whether Her Majesty's Government accept that interpretation, whether they were consulted about such an important change and whether they agreed to it?

I doubt whether the interpretation which the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has put on the speech is very widely accepted, but I will consider all these matters. The question here is "Are we closely integrated in our discussions with the United States"?, and the answer is "Very closely indeed."

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, although we are closely integrated, it is also true that we can operate independently and that this situation is more important now than it has been in recent years? Would he not also agree that it is absolutely vital to carry public opinion with Government policy on this matter? Can my right hon. Friend undertake that the Service Ministers and himself will do more at times, other than when presenting the Service Estimates, to explain defence policy in detail throughout the country?

Yes, Sir. I think that it is right that both aspects of this should be emphasised; that we have this independence to which my hon. Friend has referred and about which fee talks a great deal in the House, and that we also have the closest integration with an important ally.

Would not the Minister agree that the statement made by Mr. McNamara and the interpretation placed on it, as has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), is of the highest importance? Will he, therefore, undertake to make a public statement, say, next week—even though the House may not be sitting—on the British Government's attitude to Mr. McNamara's statement and the implications which many have placed on it?

Mr. McNamara's statement was of the highest importance, but I doubt if all these glosses put on it are.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men working in Portsmouth dockyard, at the latest convenient date, earned less than the national average of £15 12s. l0d.

The "national average" figure of £15 12s. l0d. relates to the working week ending 13th April, 1962. In this week there were 3,670 adult male workpeople in Portsmouth dockyard who earned more, and 9,288 who earned less, than this figure. Any such figures are, of course, largely influenced by the amount of overtime worked. Nevertheless, the dockyard average was £14 8s. 10d., although this figure relates to a working week of half-an-hour less than the national average.

Do the average figures which my hon. Friend has quoted include the recant pay award which was published last week?

No, they do not include the latest pay award which took effect on 9th July; of 6s. for the skilled, 5s. 6d for the semi-skilled and 5s. for the unskilled. These figures should be added to those I gave.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many are at present on the advancement rosters for chief engine room artificer, chief mechanician, chief ordnance artificer, and chief electrical artificer, respectively.

Forty-nine engine room artificers. There are at present no mechanicians, ordnance artificers or electrical artificers waiting on roster for advancement to chief.

In view of the apparently recurring difficulties experienced on this point in these technical branches, is it not time that the Admiralty really examined the rating structure again?

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) knows that this matter has been continually examined and debated. It is important that we should do all we can to draw the attention of all ships and establishments to this deficiency. We have recently put out an A.F.O. emphasising the number of men whom we need to qualify for advancement, and I have also made arrangements for the Second Sea Lord to write a letter personally to the commanders-in-chief drawing their attention to the deficiencies which exist.

Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see why these rosters cannot be kept full?

We are doing that.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many of Her Majesty's ships at present in commission do not carry their full complement of chief electrical artificers and electrical artificers.

Nine, Sir. In addition forty-six, while having the correct numbers overall, carry senior electrical artificers or senior electrical mechanicians in lieu of chief electrical artificers or chief electrical mechanicians.

Does not this indicate that there is a shortage of electrical artificers and chief electrical artificers? What are the Government doing about it since, of course, this is related to the previous Question?

The main remedy, I think, lies in an increased entry of artificer apprentices and a greater share of them going into the electrical specialisations. This we are undertaking at the moment. The other remedies include the cross-training of other artificers so that there is more flexibility of employment. The recent introduction of a mechanician apprentice entry into the radio-electrical branch, announced last July, will help in this direction.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the lower accident rate achieved in the United States Naval Air Service as a result of increased expenditure on safety measures; and if he will increase expenditure on accident prevention in order to reduce the number of accidents to naval aircraft.

I am unable to say how far the lower accident rate in the United States Navy is attributable to any increased spending on flight safety. Comparisons with the United States Navy tend to be misleading owing to differences in the methods of classification. In the last eleven years the major accident rate in the Fleet Air Arm has been reduced per 10,000 hours from 24 down to 10. We are at present considering various ways of improving still further our flight safety.

Could my hon. Friend give some outline of the new steps he intends taking? Can he say why it is impossible to get a straight comparison in the number of accidents in a number of flying hours?

Consideration is being given to setting up a Flight Safety Centre to distribute flight safety information and to run flight safety courses. It is difficult to compare like with like, because the endurance of United States naval aircraft is greater than ours and one cannot, therefore, say that 10,000 hours of their flying time would represent the same number of deck landings. If one takes the major accident rates and compares them with the number of deck landings, our figures are favourable compared with theirs.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if, in view of the large number of candidates rejected for service in the Royal Navy through inability to satisfy the eyesight requirements, and the resultant loss of good men to the Service, the will authorise a review of these standards.

Yes, Sir. These like all other naval entry standards are constantly under review and it has recently been decided to lower the eyesight standard for the junior electrical branch, all categories of the engineering branch and all artificer apprentices. Candidates for all these branches will now be permitted to wear glasses.

While I agree that Lord Nelson did quite well with only one eye, may I ask my hon. Friend if he will be careful not to go too far in relaxing the standard in branches where two good eyes are essential, whether any other branches are to have the standard relaxed, and also whether recent rejects will be considered if they apply again?

Yes, Sir. We shall communicate with recent rejects to see if they wish to apply again. The question of extending relaxation in the other branches is being examined and I will bear in mind the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend about the need for good eyes in some branches. I have been trying for three-and-a-half years to get some relaxation here and I am delighted that at last we have done it.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement showing the number of houses built by the Admiralty within the Borough of Helston for naval personnel at Culdrose Airfield; what was their cost; how many such houses are proposed to be built; when they are to be built; and what will be their cost.

The Admiralty has built 230 houses within the Borough of Helston for naval personnel at R.N. Air Station, Culdrose, at a cost of £580,000.

Will the Civil Lord take account of the fact that the Admiralty's first suggestion that some of these new houses, or the whole of them, should be built in Camborne—Redruth seemed a very sensible one? In view of the fact that these houses will be a century investment, that disarmament will come at some time—in our time we hope—that the population of Camborne—Redruth is five times that of Helston, and that recently his own Government decided to cut off the branch line to Helston, will he reconsider the proposition?

We always wanted to build at Helston and we have re-examined this matter and think that it is now the right decision. I think that Cam-borne is a good deal further away than Culdrose and that if the 'branch line is not to be run the roads will be even more crowded and the difference in travelling time will be greater still.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was the Minister of Housing and Local Government who in the first place suggested that the houses should be built at Camborne? Is he aware that in the winter it would mean half an hour's drive for personnel going to and from Culdrose whereas, from the present housing estate, it is only five minutes, and that in the summer it would mean anything between three-quarters of an hour and an hour's drive to get there?

I think that is a very good justification for building the houses at Helston.

I beg to give notice that, as the answer is so unsatisfactory, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he has yet decided on the requirements for a successor to H.M.S. "Victorious".

I am afraid I cannot usefully add very much to my reply of 28th February to the hon. Member. He will understand that there are various complex requirements to allow for, at least one of which first emerged in the 1962 Defence White Paper: namely the aim of achieving a range of common aircraft with the Royal Air Force.

Can my hon. Friend at least say whether the design work for a carrier of about 50,000 tons referred to in last year's Defence White Paper is proceeding, and if it is proceeding satisfactorily what is the earliest time that we can expect such a ship to be laid down?

Design work is proceeding, but I cannot state without notice when a decision will be reached, because no decision has yet been taken about laying down the ship.

When is it proposed to take a decision about this? It has been on the boards now for a very long time and something should be done to approve or not approve.

As with many other decisions in the defence sphere—there was a Question to my right hon. Friend earlier—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to address his question to the Minister of Defence.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what religious service took place on the occasion of the commissioning at Lossiemouth of a naval aircraft designed for the delivery of hydrogen-bombs; to which denomination the chaplain who conducted this service belongs; if he will circulate in HANSARD the text of the form of service used; and by what authority this form of service was used on this occasion.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the commissioning ceremony of 801 Squadron at R.N. Air Station, Lossiemouth, which included a short religious service. The chaplains of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland took part, and no special authority was required. I am circulating the text of the service in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the Civil Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it occurred to any of those concerned that there was a certain incongruity about these proceedings?

No, I do not think that it did occur because I do not think there was any incongruity. As I said in my reply, this was in respect of the personnel of the squadron and I think that it is right to ask God's help for all those who play a gallant and dedicated part in deterring aggression and keeping the peace of this country.

If this was confined to asking God's help for the personnel, most of us would agree, but if it was asking God's help for the ultimate object of projecting hydrogen bombs on a defenceless civil population, was there not a certain incongruity?

As I made clear, this was directed to the personnel.

asked the Secretary of State for War for what purposes his Department is using the former ordnance depot in Cottage Beck Road, Scunthorpe; what proposals he has received from the interested bodies concerned for its transfer and use as a sports centre for young people; and if he will make a statement.

This depot is surplus to Regular Army requirements. Part of the site will be used by the Territorial Army and the rest will be transferred to the General Post Office if terms are agreed. My right hon. Friend has not received any proposals for its use as a sports centre for young people.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this has been transferred already to the Post Office? Is he aware that I was today informed at the headquarters of the Post Office that this was not the case? Is he further aware that the highest authorities on physical education in the Ministry of Education believe that this is a perfect building for a youth sports centre, and would it not be a tragedy to use it for storing Post Office material? Will the hon. Gentle- man see that nothing is done until he has received the views of the Scunthorpe Borough Council, the local education authority and the county education authority, all of whom want this building transferred to the Borough of Scunthorpe for the use of the youth in the locality?

I am aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's views and those of his constituents. It is part of our normal disposal procedure that surplus buildings have first to be offered to other Departments to see if they have need for them. The Post Office has indicated a need. The transfer to the G.P.O. is not finally setttled and if it does not go through we should gladly consider other proposals.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that nothing final will be done until he has heard those views at the earliest possible moment?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General whose Department has indicated its interest.

asked the Secretary of State for War why Trooper Walton of Bovington Camp was placed under close arrest on 11th May; why the commanding officer did not communicate with Bensham General Hospital regarding the serious illness of his mother; and why no action was taken to grant compassionate leave until the intervention of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.

Trooper Walton was placed under close arrest because he had threatened his commanding officer that if he was not granted leave he would go absent. The commanding officer had been in close touch with the family doctor about the health of the soldier's mother. As soon as a diagnosis of serious illness was made, the hospital informed the unit, and it was as a result of their subsequent discussions, and not, with respect, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, that compassionate leave was granted to the soldier.

While I am delighted that the outcome is that this young man has been posted near to the hospital where his mother is a patient, may I ask whether it is not clear to the Minister that nothing happened until I intervened? Will the Minister agree that if a recruit, who has applied for compassionate leave because of the very severe illness of his mother, is being questioned by his commanding officer, and the latter says to him, "What will you do if I do not grant leave?", the commanding officer is really provoking him to say something for which he could be put under close arrest? Is that not exactly what happened in this case? Secondly, will the Minister say why this commanding officer did not follow the universal rule when he heard that this woman had gone into hospital of telephoning the hospital or the police to get to know the facts? He did not do that. Why not? Is it mot time that comparatively junior officers had these powers of arbitrary arrest withdrawn from them?

No, the hon. Gentleman really has got the background wrong. The background to the young man being put under close arrest is that the unit had been in close touch with him and with the family doctor about his mother's illness and his wife's illness, and nothing had transpired to show that either of these were serious. He had been generously treated in the matter of leave. Events took quite a different turn when we heard from the hospital that there had been a much graver diagnosis of his mother's illness. It was for this reason that he was, quite rightly, granted leave.

Is not the Minister aware that when he says that events took a turn for the worse, what really occurred was that this young man's sister telephoned to the unit to say that her mother had been taken into hospital and that the commanding officer then told her to get a medical certificate, when leave would then be considered? Should not the commanding officer then have telephoned to the hospital? Why did he not do that?

No, Sir. I do not accept that the commanding officer did anything wrong. It is true that he heard from the sister, but he had no reason to suppose that this was not a further report about the conditions of illness of which he was perfectly well aware already. He was quite right to ask for confirmation. It was while this was being sought that the hospital itself telephoned to the unit. Confirmation was received by that call, and leave was given at once.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the latest number of National Service men given notice that they will have to serve an extra six months' conscription; and how many others he estimates will receive such notice.

9,912 National Service Men have been warned that they will be retained for an extra six months. No more are required.

While I am very glad to know that no more are required, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many people feel that it is a double injustice that men should have to serve this extra six months in peace time, and that for the one in three of these men who are married it is even more unfair?

We have debated this matter on many occasions. All I can say is that we are constantly scrutinising the numbers we need, to make sure that men are not kept back unnecessarily. We are glad that it has been possible to cancel some of these notices. But nobody who is kept back should be under any illusion about the essential nature of the service that he is performing.

May I first congratulate the Minister on getting back to the figure he gave me on 27-th June of 9,912? It is rather strange that the figure he gave in answer to the same Question one month later was 9,121. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me, which is much more important, how many men have appealed against this decision and how many of these appeals have been heard?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, if the hon. Gentleman will study my right hon. Friend's answers he will see that these figures relate to different categories.

No, they do not.

That is the explanation of the discrepancy. To date 1,764 men have submitted appeals, of which 1,109 have been considered and 655 are awaiting examination. Of the appeals so far considered 198 men have been exempted on hardship grounds.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain sense of frustration among many of these men who are being kept on, because they have not the feeling that they are required to do a useful job of work and many of them have immediate and useful occupations to go to? Their further retention from their ordinary civil employment is imposing great hardship. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assaurance that every individual case is reviewed regularly to see if retention is really necessary in each case?

In general, we review categories, obviously, but if individual cases are represented to us—and I think I remember one from the hon. Gentleman—we do scrutinise them each on their merits.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the loss of earnings by some workers at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, consequent on transference from productive work to day-rate jobs; and what steps he is taking to provide more productive work for this factory.

The main rifle programme has been completed, and there is now less scope for piecework at this factory. My right hon. Friend regrets that there is at present no prospect of getting fresh production orders for the factory on a scale that would alleviate this situation.

First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for receiving my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and myself on this matter, and may I ask him whether he has yet been able to give consideration to the gross injustice done to a small number of men whose earnings have been reduced from £3 to £4 a week because of this transference?

I have promised to write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I am ready to do so. Also, I discussed these matters with the union yesterday in the course of a routine meeting and I understand that the union is making representations in another direction. I would rather not be pressed to say more, but I will say to the hon. Gentleman that I will certainly consult with my colleagues to determine whether anything further can be done within the scope of existing legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for War what priority is being given to Gibraltarians during the scaling-down operations announcd in the Defence White Paper for the Services there.

Gibraltarians employed by the War Department will be given priority for retention provided they are under 65 and able to do the job.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am extremely glad to hear this, but it is contrary to the information which appeared in the Press? I am delighted that the Government have evidently reconsidered the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War what measures are being taken by his Department to place more orders for Army requirements in the County of Durham and the North-East.

The orders we place in a particular area must ultimately depend on the tenders submitted by manufacturers. But we do give special consideration to firms situated in development districts.

Is the Minister aware that I have addressed similar Questions to various Government Departments? As this matter of contracts comes within his own purview as Financial Secretary, will he go a little further than he has indicated and not wait until the tenders come in but ascertain whether it is possible, within the ambit of the North-East industrial centre, to place more orders in that area?

If as a result of tendering no firm in a development district would secure a substantial part of a contract, we offer the lowest tenderer in one of these districts a part of the contract at a price which would entail no extra cost to us. Further than that, if there are any firms which the hon. Gentleman knows whom he thinks we should consider for submitting tenders, I should be glad to hear from him and discuss any proposal the has in mind.

Does not the Financial Secretary realise that what I am suggesting fits in with the Government's general economic policy of promoting more work in a development district? This is a way out. Is it not possible to ascertain whether there are firms in the area ready to tender for these contracts?

We certainly do our best to do that, but in general the initiative comes, and I think it is right that it should come, from the firm.

asked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions members of the public 'have been invited to press the button to fire Honest John rockets in mock demonstrations at Lark-hill, Wiltshire.

An Honest John rocket was fired at each of the School of Artillery's open days on 27th and 28th July this year by the owner of the souvenir programme with a winning number. One rocket was similarly fired by a member of the public at a demonstration last year.

Is it not the case that on occasions schoolboys have been invited to fire this rocket? Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that an invitation to press the button as a reward for winning a raffle ticket is compatible with the pacific intentions of the British Government?

The point of these open days is to arouse public interest in the Services and to establish a means of liaison between the public and the Services. The preparation of the rocket for firing is part of the normal military training. Pressing the button is rather fun for the people who attend these open days.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this apparatus was named after the Secretary of State for War?

Would my hon. Friend not agree that this is a much more satisfactory exercise for young people to undertake than many of those which they undertake with fireworks, which they are not prevented from doing, and which is much more dangerous?

I think we are rather far away from fireworks.

asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities there are for sport in the British Army of the Rhine out of normal working hours.

All the normal sports are available in barracks and all ranks are encouraged to take part in them. Outside barracks there are facilities for sailing, canoeing, swimming, cycling and ski-ing.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that difficulties arise in connection with sports equipment, in that soldiers finish their work or exercises at a certain hour and by the time they return to barracks and have had their evening meal the sports equipment storekeeper has gone off duty? Will he ensure that sports equipment is available at reasonable hours in B.A.O.R.?

Certainly I will look into the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and if there is anything that we can do we will do it. I should like to emphasise that it is the job of platoon commanders and. indeed, of every regimental officer to help and encourage their men to gat what sporting activity they can in their spare time.

asked the Secretary of State for War from whom a complaint was received as to the conduct of Privates Edwards and Anderson; and what was the disturbance which they caused

It was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport who complained that the conduct of these soldiers was disturbing him.

What did they do?

Are we involved in any proceedings here? I should like to be sure about that.

No proceedings, Mr. Speaker.

According to my right hon. Friend's statement, the soldiers marched past his compartment on the train making a great deal of noise and shouting, "Marples is in there". Also, they entered the compartment and woke him up.

As a consequence of this incident, two young soldiers were met by an escort, summarily arrested and marched to barracks. Is not this quite outrageous?

No, Sir. They were not arrested and marched to barracks. I believe that my right hon. Friend, who is, I think, the only ex-R.S.M. in the House, correctly appreciated the situation on the train After his action, he was able to complete his journey undisturbed. I believe that the commandant, who saw the men on their return to barracks and, with a caution, dismissed the charge, also correctly appreciated the situation.

Although the commandant appears to have correctly appreciated the situation, was not this one of the most noncommital and complimentary remarks made about the Minister of Transport for some time, and was it really a breach of discipline to wake the right hon Gentleman up?

I do not think that that falls within the scope of the Minister's responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision to transfer the Drainage Machinery Depot from Whitelees, Lanark, to Bishopbriggs.

No, Sir. The buildings which are held on a sub- tenancy, and the site at Whitelees have never been very satisfactory, and some time ago it became evident that there was no reasonable alternative to finding new premises. These are being provided by the Ministry of Public Building and Works which is adapting surplus Government accommodation at Bishopbriggs for the purpose.

Is not the Secretary of State aware that there is much profound dissatisfaction in the whole of my constituency about his decision? Further, is he aware that, apparently, no attempts were made by him or his Department to get the Lanark Town Council's agreement to extend the lease of the site and that less money might well have been spent on adapting the present premises than is involved in the removal from an area where there is, and is likely to be, severe unemployment?

I am advised that completely new buildings would be required and that the cost of erection would considerably exceed the expenditure on adaptations at Bishopbriggs. The people concerned in this matter were warned over a year ago that the move was to take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of betting shops established in the last two years in Scotland.

I am collecting statements of betting office licences in force on 1st June, 1962. These will be laid before Parliament in the autumn. Meantime, I should not like to estimate what the total will prove to be.

Would it be accurate to say that many hundreds of betting shops have been established during the last two years or so and that the number employed in the betting industry in Scotland during the past ten years has increased by more than 65 per cent.? Is this an indication that the Scottish economy is getting going under the present Government?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of licences is a matter for the licensing courts. As regards employment, the hon. Gentleman will remember that the President of the Board of Trade in his speech two weeks ago gave figures of considerable increases in one or two other sections of our economy.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much building material and how many building workers are currently employed either on building new betting shops or on modernising existing buildings for the provision of these facilities?

That is a good deal beyond the scope of the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the need to reinvigorate the salmon industry in Scotland, what plans have been made by Her Majesty's Government regarding its further development.

The development of the salmon industry is primarily a matter for the owners and lessees of salmon fishings and for Salmon Fishery District Boards; but I shall, of course, take into account any suggestions which may be made by the Hunter Committee when it reports.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the old days in Scotland salmon used to be as common as brown trout and that many varying interests will benefit if we can once more recreate that situation? Further, is he aware that many people believe that a more vigorous policy against the seal menace and against the pollution of our rivers and in favour of more salmon hatcheries would do very much more good to the salmon industry than merely restricting inshore fishing?

I share my hon. Friend's hope for the future of the salmon industry in Scotland. I am sure that these points will come out when the Hunter Committee reports.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most important step he could take for the purpose of improving salmon stocks in most of the Scottish rivers would be to get rid as soon as possible of the pollution which is still killing far more fish than all the illegal methods put together?

I agree with the right hon. Gentelman.

Does the Secretary of State realise that this industry has for genenations provided whole colonies of fishermen with a livelihood for themselves and their families and that the present absence of a constructive plan is imperilling all that? Will he be a little more constructive so as to give some hope for the workers in this industry?

I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. It was for that reason that we brought in the Orders to prevent drift netting for salmon. I am sure that any further constructive ideas will be considered when the Hunter Committee reports.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the total area of land held by the Forestry Commission in Scotland; how much of this is classified as agricultural and grazing land not to be planted; how much is unplantable and miscellaneous; and how much land has been sold since 30th September, 1961.

At 30th June this year, the Forestry Commission held 1,475,000 acres in Scotland; 413,000 acres of this area were agricultural and grazing land; and 264,000 acres were unplantable and miscellaneous. Between 30th September, 1961, and 30th June, 1962, 5,000 acres were sold, and at the latter date the sales of a further 26,000 acres were being negotiated.

I am glad that the Commission is this year selling some of its land, but will not my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Forestry Commission's main job is to plant trees, it should sell as much as it can of the land which it does not intend to plant in order to acquire land which it does intend to plant?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he appreciates that a great deal of this land is on the extreme tops of hills, being land which can neither be planted nor easily used.

Is not one thing which is restricting the Forestry Commission from expanding its work the lack of suitable land for planting? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make it possible for the Commission to get land on which it can extend its work?

I think that the use of our hill and marginal land for forestry and agriculture is of extreme importance, and I am looking into this matter very carefully to see how the balance can best be improved.

As the reserve of planting land is a very important part of long-term forestry plans, would it be possible to consider the acquisition of planting land as part of the five-yearly review of long-term policy for forestry which, I think, is about due now?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in answer to another Question today, will be announcing the appointment of a working party of officials to carry out this stage of the review of forestry policy in Great Britain foreshadowed by his predecessor four years ago in the statement he then made on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation, contained in paragraph 349 of chapter 12 of the Departmental Committee Report on the Probation Service, regarding consultation with the interested parties with a view to the establishment of a sole negotiating body for Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to implement the recommendation of the Morison Report relating to the establishment of a single negotiating body for probation officers.

I intend in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ask the organisations concerned to consider this question. But I have, in the first place, referred the recommendations of the Committee on pay and conditions of service to the existing negotiating machinery. This seems right in view of the time which would necessarily be involved in any reorganisation of the machinery.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the urgency of this problem? Why the delay in implementating a relatively simple proposition of this kind? Does not he recognise that the probation officers in Scotland have an even greater grievance than their counterparts in England in that they will lose money by the delay in implementing proposals on any pay increase which is given and that the 2½ per cent. is miserable enough without adding this insult to the injury already suffered?

I think that if I had taken any action other than to give it to the existing negotiating machinery the delay would have been much greater.

We have been given no indication as to when the discussions will take place. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when they will take place and how soon after that he will introduce the necessary legislation in order to put this matter right?

I understand that the negotiating committee has met once already and has not made any recommendation to me because it has not agreed. As soon as it does and if it makes a recommendation to me, I will deal with it as quickly as I can.

Will the Secretary of State say what use it is to refer this to the joint negotiating committee when in England the committee's recommendation has been turned down by the Government?

Because if we tried to set up any alternative system and had to go through the problem of getting the bodies concerned to agree on a quite new system we should not even have got started.