asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent reliance is placed by commanding officers on radar organisation reports, instead of the traditional methods of navigation, in darkened warships operating in company at sea for night hunting of our own submarines; and whether revised instructions will be issued to avoid false radar organisation reports becoming a factor in causing a collision.

Commanding officers of Her Majesty's ships are provided with and use both radar and visual information for ship safety. No undue reliance is placed on either source of information.

In two ship anti-submarine actions, where close situations may develop, visual aids are predominant and a qualified officer is specifically stationed on the bridge for the safe navigation of the ship by traditional methods. He monitors orders given by the commanding officer who is normally stationed in the operations room. If necessary he overrides any unsafe action which may result from a false radar report.

This procedure has been promulgated in detail to the Fleet.

How does the Civil Lord account for the collision between the destroyer "Battleaxe", which has to be scrapped, and the frigate "Ursa" during a night submarine exercise when the orders were "not to close within two miles"? Both ships were on approximately similar courses, at about the same speed, and when the collision occurred an "Ursa" rating remarked, "We have hit something." The "Battleaxe" captain said, "Yes, it is me". Both captains thought that they had hit the submarine and one stated that the collision was unbelievable. How did this matey party occur?

There are a number of aspects of this collision which are still sub judice. Two courts martial are still pending, so I think that it would be wrong if I commented on it at this stage.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is now the policy of the Admiralty regarding the charging of ratings before a court martial after a collision at sea; and if he will make a statement.

Current Admiralty policy is, as it always has been, that wherever there is a prima facie case of an offence under the Naval Discipline Act the person concerned shall be brought to trial either summarily or by court martial. This applies equally to collisions as to other matters, and to officers as to ratings.

Without commenting, naturally, on the details of the court martial, may I say that I am a little surprised? I should like to ask the Civil Lord if in fact responsibility is placed on the ratings rather than on the officers. I think that this is about the first time that it has happened that a rating has been reprimanded. May I ask what effect a reprimand has on a rating, because reprimands are usually given, as far as I know, to officers?

It is not the first time that someone other than a commanding officer has been court martial-led or charged.

A rating?

It is true that in this instance the inquiry started at a lower level—in order to evolve the facts and details. It is true that one rating has been court martialled and three officers. There are still now pending the courts martial of the commanding officers. I will look into the point and perhaps I can write in detail to the right hon. Member about the effect it might have on the rating's career.

Is it not unusual for these courts martial to start with the lower ratings first and then work upwards, because if blame has been apportioned to the ratings there is probably not much left to apportion to anybody else?

I think that I have heard in other connections that it is important to elicit the facts first before one carries on. That is why this started at this level in this instance. The facts have now been elicited and therefore it has been carried on to the courts martial of the two commanding officers.

Does this mean that in future ratings will be court martial-led and cases will start at the lowest level and only later will reach the commanding officers?

No, I do not want to prejudge any future case. It entirely depends on the circumstances where action and charges start.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what firms other than Baileys a portion of the Royal Naval Dockyard at Malta was offered; and what were the terms.

Twelve firms were given information to enable them to consider whether they would be prepared to take over Malta Dockyard on a commercial basis. Messrs. Baileys were the only firm prepared to take the direct responsibility.

Is the Civil Lord aware that, according to such information as I have, the reason for this is that the terms were so unsatisfactory that no other firm would take over? Is he further aware that Baileys, according to any information I have had, have not been conducting affairs satisfactorily in Malta? Is he aware that there has been grave dissatisfaction about the way they have been conducted? Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to publish as soon as possible the findings of the inquiry into Baileys?

On the first point, there was a very long period of negotiation and twelve firms were given information. There was a consortium of another two firms which was also interested. Therefore, I do not think that the conditions could have been so outrageous as to discourage a reasonable taker. We got a reasonable taker. I will look into the question of the inquiry and a possible publication of the findings.

Are any negotiations taking place at present between Baileys and the Bethlehem Steel Company of America to take over part of the yard?

I read that report in the Press. I should not like to answer without notice.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men will be out of employment this year and next as a result of the run-down of the dockyard in Malta; how many have already been made redundant; and what steps are being taken to find employment for the men who are being dismissed.

As already announced, no discharges resulting from the Government's decision to reduce the naval base at Malta will take effect before 4th January, 1963.

Between that date and 31st March, 1963, allowing for retirements and normal wastage, it is estimated that civilian discharges are unlikely to exceed 150, of whom 60 have already received warning notices.

Between 1st April, 1963, and 31st March, 1964, discharges are expected to be about 700.

As to the last part of the Question, I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies that this is a matter for the Malta Government.

Is the Civil Lord aware that half of the 150 will automatically retire because of age? Is alternative employment being found for the men who are to be dismissed not this year but up till 1964? We have invested on loan to Baileys £6<| million for the purpose of absorbing men who are made redundant by the Admiralty. Can he tell us When Baileys will absorb those men who have become or will become redundant?

I think Chat I ought to correct the hon. Gentleman as regards the loan. The loan was mainly to make the dockyard suitable and efficient to accept commercial work. That it now is, and I hope that it will continue to attract commercial work. The question of employment is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I do not think that I ought to enter into it here.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a further statement on the programme of scientific research and discovery in oceanography which is now in progress by the £800,000 Royal Research Ship "Discovery" indicating which other nations' ships are taking part in the expedition, which oceans are being and will be explored and what bearing it will have on the fishing industry.

Yes, Sir. Twelve other nations are taking part: Australia, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa, Thailand, the United States and the U.S.S.R. The India Ocean is being explored and the results, applied to other oceans, should eventually benefit world fishing by enabling the deep seas and warmer parts of the oceans to be worked.

Does not the Civil Lord realise that the North Sea and other fishing grounds in the Northern Hemisphere are full of marine problems awaiting investigation by expeditions such as this? Might not this expensive and elaborate scientific expedition very fairly devote some of its investigations to the North Sea, with advantage to the fishing industry of Britain and our food supplies?

The question of the North Sea, particularly off Aberdeen, comes more directly under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. I will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in it. No doubt, he might take the opportunity to visit the Department's laboratory in Aberdeen.

It was said earlier that this ship would be used to explore northern waters, that is, the North Sea and further north, to see whether it was possible to find new fishing grounds in this area. Is anything being done to find fresh grounds for the middle-water fleets?

When "Discovery" has finished this international oceanographic research, her next commission will be in the north-east Atlantic on this sort of study.

Can my hon. Friend say when this is likely to be?

I think that it will not be until late 1963.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made with the design project for an aircraft carrier replacement for H.M.S. "Victorious".

At the moment, there is nothing I can usefully add to my replies of 28th February and 1st August. Design is proceeding.

Are we to understand from that Answer that, in spite of all the recent exercises, the lessons which apparently resulted from them and the very great doubts which appear to have been thrown up regarding the future of these ships, it is still the desire of the Admiralty to proceed?

Yes, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the length of time it takes to build these ships, time is running out when the design should be completed and a decision arrived at? Secondly, will he assure the House that there has been no departure from the policy of mobility for our Forces which was so well set out in the 1962 White Paper?

I recognise that it takes at least three years to design a ship of this size and complexity and it is, therefore, important that a decision should be taken in the fairly near future. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, he will remember that the Prime Minister himself in a speech at the end of July endorsed the 1962 Defence White Paper.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty by what authority consent was given to the provision by Sea Cadets of a guard of honour at the Digswell Conservative Association garden party in July, 1962.

I find that this guard of honour of one officer and eight cadets was arranged through a misunderstanding by the unit's commanding officer. This unit with the title T.S. "Amethyst" was anxious to honour its president my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander kerans) who happened to be opening the fete. One of the standing regulations of the Sea Cadet Council is that no unit of the Corps may take part in any function of a political nature. All those concerned are being reminded of this regulation. I am sorry that this regulation should have been accidentally transgressed.

I welcome that statement from the Civil Lord and I am glad to hear that the people concerned are being reminded of the orders. Will he take steps to ensure that people in other parts of the country are made aware of the orders in case a similar thing should happen elsewhere?

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this pedantic Parliamentary Question has taken away a great deal of the pleasure that these boys felt in welcoming to their village my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans), in honour of whose heroic battle in H.M.S. "Amethyst" they have named their own branch?

I regret that I was personally responsible for allowing the organisers of this fete to be put in touch with the unit concerned. I sincerely apologise to my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and to my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made towards ensuring the full use of facilities in the degree course in electrical engineering at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.

I hope that we shall be in a position to offer courses for external students in time for the next academic year.

I welcome that statement by the hon. Gentleman because there is at the moment a full staff at the college doing the degree course and nothing like a full complement of students. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make the facilities available there widely known to people who may be in a position to nominate or send students?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the matter publicity by his Question. However, there are still some problems to be overcome. He will not mind if I just mention one—security.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what difference there is between the apparent rank and the actual substantive rank and rates of pay of Admiralty recruiting personnel.

Certain grades in the Recruiting Service, notably the recruiting officer and the recruiter II who are at present dressed respectively as lieutenant, R.N. and chief petty officer, or similar ranks in the Royal Marines, receive a general level of emoluments aligned with those of less senior ranks. This situation has been the subject of a recent review, and I hope to be able to write to my hon. Friend quite soon to give him the details.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the last occasion on which the basic scale of naval long-service pensions, established by William IV's Order in Council of 24th August, 1831, of ½d. per day pension per year of service for able seamen, with additions of ½d. for petty time and ¼d. for leading seaman time, was increased was in 1919; what is the present basic pension of an able seaman on the 1919 scale, before receiving the additional 5d. per day at 55 and 4d. at 65; and what consideration is being given to increasing the present basic pension of1½d. per day per year of service for able seamen after 22 years' service, and the ½d. and ¼d. for petty and leading seaman time.

No, Sir. The elements for service and rank in naval long-service pensions were again increased in 1945, 1950, 1956, 1959 and 1962.

If assessed on service alone, the basic pension of an able seaman with 22 years' service who was pensioned under the 1919 Code would be 19s. 3d. a week.

Pensions awarded under the 1919 Code are increasable under the 1944–47, 1952, 1956 and 1959 Pensions (Increase) Schemes and will be further increased following the passage of the new Pensions (Increase) Bill. No increase in the original basic elements for service and rank of the 1919 Code are contemplated.

Is the Civil Lord aware that naval ratings and Royal Marines pensioned on the 1919 scale, that is to say, the 1831 system—I have a copy of the Order in Council in my pocket—were pensioned until 1950 under that scale, or later, so that today those below age 55 have not yet received the 5d. increase due at 50 or the over-60s' increases to which he refers? They do not come into it at all. The able seaman's pension, as the hon. Gentleman says, is 19s. 3d—

Question.

What is wrong with the Conservative Party? Do hon. Members opposite want these halfpennies and farthings still to go on?

Question.

The able seaman's basic pension, as the Civil Lord has said—this is not my statement; I am quoting the Civil Lord—is 19s. 3d. a week after 22 years' service. Does the Tory Party support that? Petty officers are still drawing the ½d. for petty time and the ¼d. for leading seaman's time instituted in 1831.

Is it not high time that the l½d. basic pension was increased so that these pensioners had a better pension than 19s. 3d. a week after 22 years' service, and also that the petty officer's 1831 ½d. and especially the ¼d. were increased, since the ¼d is no longer legal tender?

The supplementary question has now reached the stage when I must rule it out of order by sheer length.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many of the people now employed in security work in the Admiralty have had special training in security or have had special experience beyond that common to all officials of their rank in the Admiralty.

Out of the forty-mine persons, naval and civil, employed full-time on security duties by the Admiralty, eighteen are engaged on clerical duties for which no special security training is required. The remaining thirty-one have all received special training by the Security Service and in the Admiralty since the formation of the Security Department. Several of them had previously been employed on security duties of one kind or another for some years. For example, one of the assistant directors is seconded from the Security Service; the senior inspector is an ex-police officer and ten others, in addition to training, have had previous experience of security work not common to other officials in the Admiralty.

Perhaps it is more important to ask: what training do the other people in the Admiralty have in cooperating with the security people? That is where it seems such a breakdown has occurred.

We have been at great pains since the setting up of the Security Department to make sure that indoctrination takes place everywhere. We now have a part-time security officer in every fleet establishment and every civilian establishment. We have included instruction in every officer course and for every rating above the leading rate, and we also include a very thorough period of training on security procedures in every civilian course.

Does this figure of forty-nine include lieutenant-commanders and other officers about to be retired who are filling in a few months? If so, are they given any special training in security before they start screening other officers? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that no officer about to be retired will in future be employed in screening other officers who are his seniors?

Yes, Sir, it does include some of that rank, and they have been instructed. We are looking into the question of civilianising this function rather than using officers who are nearing retirement.

Have these gentlemen any special training in detecting homosexuals?

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what further information he has concerning the breakdown of the gas turbine in H.M.S. "Ashanti"; and when she will be resuming her unfulfilled programme.

"Ashanti's" gas turbine has been stripped and the main components removed to the maker's works. An examination is being carried out in close consultation with the Admiralty and the National Gas Turbine Establishment. The detailed results of this investigation are awaited but it is expected that "Ashanti" will be fully operational early in the New Year.

Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a report in the Sunday Telegraph of 7th October which suggested that the principal cause of the trouble was metal fatigue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am reading from the report, and I am asking my hon. Friend whether he has seen it. The report further suggested that economies had been made in the specification at the instigation of the Admiralty. Is my hon. Friend in a position to comment on either of these points?

No, Sir. I must wait until the detailed—

Order. It is not in order to ask a Minister to comment on a Press report for which he is not responsible.

Does not the Civil Lord think that this is very strange? This boat was prepared for special demonstrations in the United States and Canada, and I should have thought that it would receive special attention, examination in preparation. In spite of that, it appears to have proved a wash-out on its first voyage.

It was prepared for demonstrations because the Americans have shown tremendous interest in this very novel form of propulsion. The fact that we have had teething trouble with the first prototype does not show any lack of confidence or imperfection in the basic design. I have every confidence that this particular design of gas turbine "Tribal" frigate will prove eminently suitable.

Surely the teething trouble should have been sorted out before the boat ventured on a demonstration trip to America and Canada.

It was while she was under power at the maximum rate and for the maximum length of time that a fault occurred in the gas turbine blading. I do not think that that is to be unexpected in a novel form of propulsion.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many checks on branches responsible for repayment services have been made since the publication of the Public Accounts Committee Report drawing attention to a loss on a sale of cartridges of £55,000: and what have been the results.

The officer appointed to check the working of Admiralty repayment services has studied the arrangements of five Departments and has found them satisafctory. His investigation has included the Department referred to in the Committee's Report.

Will the Civil Lord answer two questions? First, has any of the £55,000 bean recovered? Secondly, have there been any similar checks on the naval branches concerned with repayment services, for example the use of motor transport, on repayment for the private use of catering facilities?

We are discussing with the Treasury how we can reclaim the money lost. Perhaps I could write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him which of the five departments have been examined and which are the outstanding departments. I (have no information with me to show whether the department dealing with catering has yet been examined.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on how many occasions since the publication of the Estimates Committee Report on Her Majesty's Dockyards inspecting teams of experts have been sent overseas to prepare inspection reports on ships due for dockyard refits.

Once to the Mediterranean and once to the Indian Ocean.

Should not more of this be done? Did not the Permanent Secretary say in the Public Accounts Committee that shortage of staff was one of the difficulties? Surely after operational requirements this sort of requirement, which would save money in the dockyards and make for better planning, Should be given very high priority.

I absolutely agree. The Report was published only in July. There have been only four cases of ships coming back from overseas since then to two of which we have sent an inspecting officer. Ships coming back from home service are much more easily and invariably inspected.

asked the Secretary of State for War what assistance was given by the two fire engines maintained at the Army depot at Weedon in fighting a fire in Weedon that took six hours to get under control and was within 300 yards of the depot.

None, Sir.

Why not?

The Army fire brigade was neither told of this outbreak nor asked to turn out. If it had been asked to turn out, of course it would have done so.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this fire, which took six hours to get under control, was within 300 yards of this Army fire station, which was keeping a continuous watch and employing thirty-six men, and that the officer commanding said, I did hear about the fire but our brigade which has two fire engines, manned 24 hours a day, is for fires inside the depot only. The Army cannot go willy-nilly into things. There are such things as unions and goodness knows what"?

The latter part of the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question is undoubtedly true: there are unions and heaven knows what. I have made inquiries, and I understand that the report attributed to this officer is incorrect.

May I deal with the rest of the supplementary question? I have looked into this matter carefully, and it does not give a fair picture of the situation to say that: the fire took six hours to get under control. I am informed that it broke out at 2.30 and that it was under control by 3.30. The watch kept by the Army fire brigade is not from a watchtower looking out for fires all round. Its personnel sit manning a telephone. [ Interruption. ]This is perfectly true. Their primary duty is to watch for fires, and this they do, which may occur in stores worth £30 million. As the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well, the arrangement is that they go to civil fires only if they are called by the local fire brigade. They were not so called.

What would happen if an enemy started a fire? Would all these same processes be gone through?

That would be a different question altogether. I regard anybody who starts a fire as an enemy.

asked the Secretary of State for war what official duties have been carried out by Miss Melise Menzies since her employment by his Department.

None, Sir.

Is not this rather grim news for the recruiting campaign? We were electrified by the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman had personally recruited this charming lady and that this would make all the difference to our recruiting figures. Even when her picture appeared next day in a military cap, with rather more hair under it than even a woman sergeant-major would be likely to stand for, we still had our hopes.

I am sorry if I have dashed the hon. and learned Gentleman's hopes. But, in spite of what has appeared in many newspapers, I assure him that I did not offer Miss Menzies a job nor did I suggest that she should pose for a recruiting poster. I ought to make it clear that recruiting for the W.R.A.C. is proceeding in a most encouraging way and it has no need, nor has the rest of the Army, of any gimmicks for its recruiting.

Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the young lady in question has a brilliant brain as well as her more obviously endearing physical charms?

I can claim only the most slender acquaintance with the young lady.

Is she on the telephone?

asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposes to take to ensure that parachutists on training exercises are not exposed to unnecessary hazards during descent by the choice of unsuitable dropping zones.

Considerable precautions are taken to ensure the safety of parachutists on training exercises. I am sure that these precautions are generally adequate, and I do not believe any changes are required.

While we all recognise that parachutists will take any risk when asked to do so, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look into the case of the night drop at Thetford the other night, when, apparently, they drifted across the main line when the Norwich to Cambridge express was coming along? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will hold an inquiry to see whether all precautions were taken in that case.

I will certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for War if fireguards are provided in all military families' hostels which have open gas or electric fires; and if the fireguards are provided with devices for fixing them to walls.

Fixed fireguards are provided in all military families' hostels that have open fires. In one hostel where rooms are heated by gas or electric fires, nursery fireguards which can be fixed to the wall are provided on the request of the families. In another hostel electric fires are fixed to the wall out of the reach of children.

Is my right hon. Friend really sure that these fixings are adequate? As a result of recent observations, I have come to the conclusion that they are not, and I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would look into the matter again and ensure that fireguards are provided free of charge to Service families.

I know that my right hon. Friend made a visit and, I think, found a fireguard which was not properly fixed. I can only say that we keep a fairly continuous watch but that if something goes wrong with a fixture, we require and expect that the family will let the authorities know.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many local men have been dismissed, and how many are to be dismissed, in Malta as a consequence of the run-down of the War Department in Malta; and what steps he is taking to find alternative employment for them.

Thirty-five Maltese civilians are being discharged this month. There will inevitably be further discharges, but the actual numbers have not yet been decided: they will, however, be on a smaller scale than those announced for the Royal Navy.

I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the question of further employment for those no longer required by the Services is a matter for the Government of Malta.

Is the Minister aware that the chief representative of the United Kingdom Government in Malta recently stated to a Press conference that by the end of 1964, 3,500 men will be thrown out of employment by our three Services? If it is the responsibility of our Government to dismiss these 3,500 men, is it not our responsibility also to find work for these redundant men?

So far, the Army has been responsible for only thirty-five people being discharged and, as I have said, further discharges are likely to be many less than for the Royal Navy. I cannot add to the Answer which I have given.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will hold a formal inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Gunner W. J. Gordon.

A properly constituted board of inquiry was held to investigate the circumstances in which Gunner Gordon died on 1st April this year, and a full account based on the findings of the inquiry was sent both to Gunner Gordon's mother and to my hon. Friend.

While the family very much appreciates the Army's kindness in its help in this case, may I ask my right hon. Friend to let me have a full copy of the court's findings?

I think I have sent my hon. Friend as much information as is required. If, however, he gets in touch with me and I can do anything more which is proper to let him know about this distressing incident, I will certainly do so.

asked the Secretary of State for War if any changes are contemplated with regard to the future recruitment of Gurkhas to the British Army.

As I said in answer to a Question from my right hon. and gallant Friend on 30th May, 1962, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take a decision about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas before next year. This must naturally include a decision on the future level of recruiting.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when this question comes up for consideration that not only would it be very unwise to reduce the Brigade of Gurkhas, but that it would have unfortunate repercussions in the Kingdom of Nepal, which is undergoing considerable strain with the advance of China so near to its border?

I give my right hon. and gallant Friend an undertaking that every possible circumstance and condition will be taken into consideration before Her Majesty's Government come to a final decision.

If nothing is contemplated before next year and no decision has been reached, why is there all the talk in the Press and elsewhere about the Government's decision not to proceed with recruitment and, in fact, to disband two of the Gurkha regiments? How has this arisen?

I am unable to answer why rumours appear in the newspapers. I can only tell the House what the correct situation is, and I am glad to have been asked. We have not come to a decision. With regard to recruiting next year, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the decision on actual numbers for recruiting is never taken until, perhaps, the spring of the year in which the recruits are brought in.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, and will he take into consideration when dealing with this matter, that there are substantial reports that Communist recruiting agencies are in being in Nepal and are offering considerably higher salaries to Gurkha ex-soldiers if they will join the Communist forces, and that there would be something insane about purporting to help India in her present difficulty and, at the same time, helping soldiers to join her enemies?

Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that a reduction in the Gurkhas has not been considered in relation to the reorganisation of the infantry?

I cannot give that undertaking. A number of possibilities must be being considered. What I have told the House is that no decision has yet been arrived at, and we will not arrive at a decision until next year. I cannot go further than that.

rose —

I think we ought to get on.

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of soldiers of the Regular Army who have applied to purchase their discharge, other than those exercising their rights under Section 14 of the Army Act, from 1st January, 1962, up to the latest convenient date; what is the number of applications which have been approved: and if he will make a statement.

Up to 30th September, 1962, 714 soldiers had been permitted to purchase their discharge. Discharges by purchase, where severe hardship to dependants is not involved, are at present being deferred for six months, and some 270 soldiers are in this category. This deferment will come to an end in May next year.

Will the Minister be good enough to say whether the undertaking or the statement he made in the House on Second Reading still stands until that date? Can the House take it that each one of the men who have applied to purchase their discharge to fight elections have previously applied to purchase their discharge and been refused?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper about the discharge of soldiers for election purposes and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to leave his question until then. My undertaking to the House that, except in the most exceptional cases. Regular soldiers who applied for discharge by purchase would have to wait six months still stands, and will stand until the end of the time when the last National Service man is allowed out of the Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the quotas, in terms of numbers of men and dates, which he has authorised in connection with the recruitment of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve or "Ever-readies", and the number of men actually enlisted; and if he will make a statement.

As I explained to the hon. Gentleman on 11th July, 1962, the quotas were imposed only for the first three months. One hundred and thirty-seven officers and 3,457 other ranks have been enlisted. Recruiting is slower than I would wish, but is nevertheless proceeding steadily.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House a categorical assurance that the quota as at 1st November was 11,250? Is it not quite clear, on the basis of his own figures, that the Government managed to get only 33⅓per cent.? In these circumstances, does it not mean that the Government must look again at the "Ever-ready" policy?

I have said that recruiting is going slower than I would like it to, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that when we were discussing the setting up of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, I stressed that this was a long-term effort. Although I should like to see a greater long-term build-up, I am glad that recruiting has now settled down to a regular pace. I do not think it is a question of our having failed, but of progress being slow. If I might further answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, in the liglht of initial experience, I found that certain misunderstandings existed, and I therefore consulted the British Employers' Confederation, which gave me very helpful advice. Subsequently, the Council of the Confederation decided to follow the lead set by the Government and recommend to its members that they should consider the possibility of making up She balance of pay for "Everreadies" called up for service. If this is thoroughly known about and comes about, it might make quite a difference in the build-up.

While the House will be obliged for the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, may I ask him to answer the question I asked him? Is it not a fact that the War Office quota was 6,000 men by 1st June and 11,250 by 1st November?

These are the quotas, established for two reasons. One is that we might get more volunteers, and the second is that I wanted to be quite sure that the terms did not end at the same time, but ended in a staggered period. The quotas have been quite useful for the latter purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many men are being released from the Army to fight Parliamentary by-elections; and how much each of them would have to pay to obtain his discharge by purchase.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of soldiers who have applied for release to fight the forthcoming by-elections.

I have approved the applications of three soldiers for discharge to fight three separate Parliamentary by-elections.

If the three soldiers whose release has been authorised had purchased their discharge, the cost would have been £203 10s., £150 and £125 respectively.

Will the Minister agree that this is a selfish wangle, which is unfair to other Service men who are honourably carrying out their obligations, and a nuisance to the electors upon whom they are about to descend? Will he not consider a reversion to the 1945 practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —when we got three weeks' leave of absence without pay and reported back for duty if we did not get in?

With regard to the last part of the supplementary question. I suppose that the House realises that if we were to try to revert to the practice of 1945, it would mean legislation. The emergency regulations have come to an end, and it would mean legislation. I only wish to point that out. I quite agree that anyone who resorts to this kind of subterfuge is taking a very unfair advantage over his comrades, but, frankly, I would rather see a few dodgers escape their obligations than that one man who genuinely wanted to enter this House should be prevented from doing so.

Would not the Minister agree that the nomination papers at Chippenham seem to be getting top-heavy, as already there are three or four Service candidates? Can he tell the House whether the final discharge papers which are issued to soldiers who want to become candidates are issued before or after their nomination papers have to go in? Is it possible that, once a soldier is discharged, he can withdraw his Parliamentary candidature, and thereby effect his discharge without any cost?

First, the discharge papers have to go through before he is nominated. We have to discharge the soldier first. The Army is responsible for only one candidate in the Chippenham by-election, and he has already been discharged. One of the difficulties, technically, I suppose, is that it is perfectly possible, once a man has been discharged, for him to decide not to stand for Parliament. This is one of the quandaries in which someone in my position is placed. I can only go on good faith, and it is very difficult to decide whether the bona fides are there or not. My right hon. Friends and I have taken the view that, as long as this does not become a very general abuse, we ought to allow the benefit of the doubt, even if one or two bad eggs get out.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between the 1945 position and now is that these are soldiers of the Regular Army, whereas in 1945 the position was not so? Would he not agree that it would be very dangerous indeed if a soldier or officer of the Regular Army, having fought an election, was required to rejoin, because this would be bringing the Army right into politics? Will he, in any mature consideration of this problem, stick to his view—that one or two dodgers are more acceptable than the introduction of the Army into politics—which is absolutely right?

I am very glad to find the hon. Gentleman on my side in this matter. I should say to the House that in view of the fact that, quite obviously, this concession is being abused, I am consulting my right hon. Emends concerned on whether some action may be necessary if this goes on. I should make that plain.

Can my right hon. Friend be more explicit in reference to the answer in which he said that he did not want to prevent anybody from standing for Parliament? Surely, there would be no question of that if they were compelled to go back if not elected?

What I was trying to point out was that, in the absence of further legislation—whether this would be right or wrong—I have no power to do this, because a soldier is absolved from his contract once he is released from the Army. Unless he applies to rejoin—and I should want some convincing about this —I have no hold on him at all.

Whereas, naturally, nobody wants to stop anybody from standing for election to Parliament, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is certainly a danger, with a General Election approaching, of figures being reached which would be quite intolerable? Would he not think of legislation, which I concede is necessary, to provide that a man can be released to fight an election, but that he should, if he fails, go back? That does not seem to me, with all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), to be bringing the Army into politics. A soldier can have political opinions in the Army, but that is not necessarily bringing the Army into politics.

I do not know, when the right hon. Gentleman refers to a General Election, whether or not he is frightened of a vast number of Tory soldiers coming forward to fight Socialist seats. I think that is hypothetical. That is not what we are facing at the moment. I have given an undertaking that if the abuse develops further, we shall have to look at it again. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not an abuse."] It is an abuse. One soldier who has been allowed out has publicly admitted that it was a "fiddle". That is an abuse, even if only a small one. If this develops further we might have to take some steps, but that is all I am prepared to say at this stage.

On a point of order. Should not the Secretary of State declare an interest in this matter? Is it not right that he came into this House during the war from the Army?

Members do not have to declare an interest, even though they have an interest, in relation to Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for War what action he has taken following the Estimates Committee Report recommending a reduction in the number of War Office staff in central London and the setting up of a committee to study War Office organisation.

My Department's replies to the Eighth Report from the Estimates Committee, Session 1961–62, will shortly be in the hands of the Committee, and will in due course be reported to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wait for their publication before asking me for details. I can, however, say that I propose to set up a Committee to study the organisation of the War Office, and that Lieut.-General Sir Archibald Nye has accepted my invitation to be its Chairman.

No doubt the Estimates Committee will be more than gratified to the extent that my right hon. Friend has accepted one of its recommendations. Will he make it clear that, although I personally am very glad that he has taken that step today, as a general rule, the answer should go first to the Estimates Committee and be reported to the House in due course?

Of course, I accept that, and it was for this reason that I sought the advice of my hon. Friend before I made the statement.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish the correspondence that passed between his Department and Field Marshal Lord Alexander about the alteration of a passage in his original dispatch about preparations for the battle of Alam Haifa.

No, Sir. It is generally recognised that Departmental correspondence of this kind should not be disclosed.

Since parts of documents which are not usually published have been published in this case, would it not be wiser to publish all the relevant parts, because there is a certain suspicion around in some quarters that something or other was being a little bit covered up? As the rule has been broken so far as to publish some parts of documents which would not normally be published, would it not be better to go further and publish this link, which would bring the whole into the clear, into the open?

I do not think that is necessary. The reason I published the original phraseology—of course, with the agreement of Field Marshal Alexander—was largely because the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have made a public statement that it looked like political forgery. I was not so worried about the right hon. Gentleman as about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who was the Secretary of State at the time, and it seemed to me that in fairness to him I should put this straight. I can go as far as this with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think anybody doubts now that there has not been any chicanery behind the scenes, but if the right hon. Gentleman is right, I make this offer. I will very gladly, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington wishes to come to see me, show him those relevant parts of the papers in which, I think, he is more interested than anyone else.

Really, this is not a thing between the right hon. Gentleman and me or between my right hon. Friend and me but a matter in which there is considerable public concern. It is not any personal, triangular thing, but a matter which the right hon. Gentleman should regard in the light of general, fairly widespread, public concern, which expressed itself at the time.

I am anxious to help the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think I can go so far as he asks, for that would be breaking a very sound tradition, which the Labour Party in its time itself went on. It always did. We cannot have all these sorts of documents published. That leads to all sorts of difficulties. Therefore, as I cannot make them public, I am making the offer, so that if the right hon. Gentleman trusts his right hon. Friend he can persuade his right hon. Friend that there is nothing wrong.

Is it necessary that I should come into the picture again? I have consulted the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have accepted his explanation, and, in particular, repudiate any idea that this was a political forgery, and because I have the highest respect for the integrity of Field Marshal Alexander I accept his explanation.

Hear, hear.

Is it not in the first place highly undesirable that officers on the active list, such as field marshals, should publish these reminiscences one after another criticising other people? But if this is to happen, is it not desirable that the documents themselves should be published?

What about politicians?

It has been very widely and generally done and it has been accepted as a fact of life, that not only field marshals but also ex-politicians do this. I am only answering the Question on the Paper, and I cannot make public the particular documents which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the difficulties of Scottish trawler owners who are operating on overfished grounds and are unable to catch enough fish to pay their way; and if he will authorise a moratorium on interest charges due to the White Fish Authority for three years while new fishing grounds are found and proved.

I am aware of the difficulties facing the Scottish trawler owners. The Government have already announced that they will make arrangements to enable the White Fish Authority to grant a moratorium on loan repayments to the Authority to those owners in default who can establish after independent examination that they have a fair chance of overcoming their financial difficulties within a reasonable period of time. A number of owners have already applied to the Authority for such a moratorium and their financial affairs are being investigated. I think we must first see how these arrangements work out before considering any fresh proposals.

Will the Secretary of State realise and appreciate the very acute difficulty which these trawler owners are in because the Government induced them to dispose of their old coal-burning vessels, which were paying, and to purchase high-cost modern trawlers which are not paying and are losing anything from £4,500 to £6,000 a year'7 If something is not done quickly this industry will grind to a stop.

I appreciate the difficulty, as my hon. Friend says, but I am confident that this is only a temporary situation in the trawler industry and that when we have the more adequate information, which will come from these investigations, we can then see if anything further is needed.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his last reply is not borne out by the facts of the situation? Is it not true to say that fully 50 per cent. of what is owed by trawler owners to the White Fish Authority has not been met at the last payment date? In view of this will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter further, in view of the condition in which the industry finds itself and which is ever worsening?

I am hoping to discuss with the chairman of the White Fish Authority the immediate problem. I cannot comment on the exact figure given by the hon. Gentleman, because I have not had it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will impose similar restrictions on foreign trawlers fishing in the Moray Firth, Minch, and Clyde, as are imposed on British trawlers.

The restrictions imposed on British and foreign trawlers in the Minch are the same. The only areas where restrictions applying to British trawlers are not imposed on foreign vessels are the Moray Firth and the Firth of Clyde: the general ban on trawling in these areas is not enforced against foreign vessels outside territorial waters since successive Governments have held the view that it would be contrary to international law to do so.

In this age, when nearly all the fishing nations have already extended their limits to anything from six miles to forty miles, is it not time we began to protect our own grounds?

I am only too well aware of what other nations are doing, and the United Kingdom's fishery limits are being kept under close review at this moment.

But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I raised this matter some two years ago, and that when the present Deputy-Speaker's father raised it fifty years ago, the replies were both the same—that it was under active consideration by the Scottish Office? If it has been under active consideration for fifty years, cannot we now be told what is to be done?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a problem affecting only the Scottish Office.

This is a ludicrous situation which must come to an end. British fishermen are becoming more and more despondent about it, when they see foreign vessels coming into their areas. It is quite ludicrous

Answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take in the present Session to reform the law of Scotland regarding intestate succession.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation during this Session to amend the present law relating to intestacy.

I lhave nothing to add to the reply that I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson)

After ten years of the excuse that there is no Parliamentary time for this reform, it is wearing a bit thin. Hon. Members of the House have continued to offer every facility for the speedy passage of a Bill, and would do so. If it is not obstruction by our side of the House which is holding up a Bill is there among the right hon. Gentleman's supporters a vested interest which is preventing a Bill being passed?

I am unaware of having said that there is any question of Parliamentary time.

It has been said time and time again.

I merely said in my reply that I could not guarantee that I would be able to bring a Bill in this Session. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an important problem. It is not, however, as urgent as some other things in the legislative programme.

Surely the Secretary of State is aware that his Government had this in the Queen's Speech two years ago? We on this side of the House and the women in Scotland want to know what has changed the mind of the Government. If it is not Parliamentary time, what else is it? May I give the assurance to the Secretary of State that if he will bring in legislation to give justice to so many women in Scotland we on this side of the House will co-operate in every way possible to get it through quickly?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her offer. This, however, is the problem not of one particular section of the community against another. It involves complicated legal proceedings. If time does become available I shall be most grateful to accept the hon. Lady's undertaking.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that his reply that it was Parliamentary time which prevents this very necessary reform for being implemented is entirely wrong, because within the last two years I introduced a Private Member's Bill on this subject, and I was frustrated by every possible means by the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman review that situation, and now that there is a new Lord Advocate in office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—do something to give every facility for the bringing in of a Private Member's Bill such as I sought to have passed two years ago?

I repeat that this is not a question of Parliamentary time; it is a question of getting various people who have had serious views about this to produce something which will improve Scottish law.

If it is not a question of Parliamentary time, will the Secretary of State tell me why he wrote in a letter which I received this morning: I cannot give any indication of the possibility of finding time for a Bill on this subject."?

I should have thought the reason for that answer was perfectly simple. At the moment we have a fairly large legislative programme, and until one can deal with the more urgent matters it is impossible to guarantee whether there is time or not.

Make up your mind.

Before I call the Lord Privy Seal, I think I should indicate to the House.that I have selected for consideration the Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen.

3.31 pm.

I beg to move, That this House reaffirms its decision of 3rd August, 1961, and urges Her Majesty's Government to use every effort to bring the negotiations to a conclusion acceptable to Parliament. The Motion refers back to the Motion of August of last year, which set out the task which we have to pursue in these negotiations to see Whether satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the European Free Trade Association. That Motion went on to give the pledges of Her Majesty's Government to Parliament that no agreement affecting these special interests or British sovereignty will be entered into until it has been approved by this House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries by whatever procedure they may generally agree. These remain the pledges of Her Majesty's Government, to which the Government will fully adhere.

This is the first opportunity that I have had of reporting fully on the course of the negotiations since the debate last June. I was sorry to be absent from the debate in July, but, as the House knows, the negotiations were in progress in Brussels. In the June debate I endeavoured to explain to the House the background to the negotiations and the characteristics of the Community with Which we were negotiating and the influence that had on the solutions we were trying to find. I endeavoured to set this in the context of the political and economic considerations which governed the decision of Her Majesty's Government to enter into these negotiations.

This afternoon I do not propose to go over that ground again. I do not propose to discuss the general considerations; these have been much debated in public recently. The second reason fox not doing so is the nature of the Amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and 'his right hon. and hon. Friends. To take up the first sentence, the amendment would support the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community provided that certain arrangements were made.

Therefore, it seems to me that this means that the Tight hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends accept, broadly speaking, the general conception of the European Economic Community and, provided that the arrangements can be made, that it is in the interests of Britain and of the Commonwealth to enter into the European Economic Community. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that some of us found it rather difficult to discern in his speech at Brighton the earnest support for this approach; but that means that it is with all the greater pleasure that we shall listen to what he has to say today when he moves the Amendment.

It therefore seems that there is general ground between, let us say, the majorities of the three parties in the House today. The differences of view are about the arrangements which should be made for entry into the Community. There may be also differences of judgment about the arrangements which have so far been made, but it becomes clear that the decision rests on the arrangements which are made and the final judgment upon them. That is the reason, therefore, why I propose to devote the greater part of my speech today to a detailed examination of the arrangements which have so far been made in these negotiations.

I should like to say something about the state of the negotiations with each of the three Communities, and then deal with the position of the E.F.T.A. countries. I want, thirdly, to say something about 'the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends concerned with planning and public ownership, and, fourthly, to comment on the present situation regarding political union, which, of course, includes foreign policy.

I turn to the provisional arrangements which have so fax been made. It is perhaps rather surprising that there should be any attempt to form a judgment upon these provisional arrangements as they are at the moment. They are all incomplete. I would ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite why it is that they should want to pass a judgment upon provisional arrangements at this moment, and without having had the opportunity of reading the texts of the arrangements, which can, of course, be published only at the conclusion of the negotiations.

I wonder whether it is a misunderstanding of what was our objective at the end of July. We then had the objective of achieving an outline over the whole negotiations. It was agreed by all the countries taking part in the negotiations that we should have this objective.

I have no doubt at all that the fact that we set ourselves that objective enabled us to achieve much more in the negotiations jointly in that time than would otherwise have been the case. But I must emphasise again that there was no question of a dateline against which we were negotiating. That was itself proven by the fact that when we reached the stage where it was necessary to have an adjournment for the summer holidays, we adjourned although we had not reached our objective of achieving the outline. In fact, we achieved about two-thirds of the outline over the whole field. The remainder has still to be negotiated.

I have endeavoured to give progress reports to the House about each stage of the negotiation, but I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the progress report which was published in August after the August meeting was not meant to be a definitive exposition of the position in the negotiations or of all the arrangements which had been reached in detail. I hope, therefore, that there will be no misunderstanding about that.

What about the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

The Prime Ministers were never told that this was the definitive position of the negotiations. In their communique they recognised that the negotiations were incomplete and that judgment could be passed only when the negotiations were completed. However, it is the case that what we had been able to negotiate provided sufficient information for a full and detailed discussion at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

As a result of the points which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers made then, both in general and in detail, I explained to each of the members of the Community bilaterally, either on the visits of their own Ministers to London or in their capitals, exactly what were the points Which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had raised. In particular, I emphasised the two themes running through the speeches of so many of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The first was the urgent need to find markets for the industrial goods of the developing countries, and the second was the need to deal with the problems of surpluses of foodstuffs and other raw materials produced by not only the developing, but also the developed Commonwealth countries.

Let me come to the details of the arrangements which we provisionally negotiated. I must apologise to the House for going into some detail, but if judgments are to be passed at this stage it is important that the House should realise what is the content, so far, of each arrangement. I turn' first to the question of the arrangements for association under Part Four of the Treaty of Rome. There is to be a new convention which, over the past few months, has been freely negotiated with the existing 18 associates of the European Economic Community.

Let me describe what the convention does. First, in the trade sphere it enables the countries to sell in the Community countries without hindrance all their produce, be it raw material, foodstuffs, or industrial goods which they are developing. They have, therefore, a preference against the outside world in their sales to the Community.

These preferences in this renegotiation have been reduced by between 25 and 40 per cent. When we expressed our views about this, we urged this upon the Community because we believed that it was in the interests of the other developing countries of the world, in particular, South America and Central America.

Secondly, the new convention arranges for a development fund for aid and development in the associates of 800 million dollars over five years. Thirdly, it arranges for institutions, in other words, a Counciil of Ministers, possibly an assembly and a court of justice, in which the Ministers from the associates and from the Community will be represented with equal status.

This arrangement gives undoubted economic advantages to the associates. We negotiated the offer from the Community to all our dependencies, with the exception of Hong Kong, Aden and the High Commission Territories which have special problems with which we are now dealing. This means about 10 million people. In addition, the offer was made to the independent Commonwealth countries of Africa and the West Indies, about 62 million people, an offer altogether for 72 million people covering almost all the dependencies and the African and West Indian Commonwealth.

The effect would have been to safeguard their interests in the United Kingdom entirely. It would have been to remove the discrimination which exists against them at the moment in the European Economic Community, and this is important when one sees that, for example, 38 per cent. of Ghana's cocoa goes to the Community and 12 per cent. to the United Kingdom, or in the case of Nigeria, 33 per cent. to the Community and 26 per cent. to the United Kingdom, or, in the case of Tanganyikan coffee, 32 per cent. to the Community and 7 per cent. to the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, desirable to remove this discrimination. What is more, in addition to safeguarding their interests in the United Kingdom, it would have opened up the whole of the enlarged Community market to them.

This, therefore, was an economic arrangement without any political contentofany kind. The institutions which are to be formed can discuss the economic arrangements as is appropriate, but there is no political content. As the House knows, Trinidad and Tobago wish to accept the offer. Jamaica and Sierra Leone are considering it further in regard to certain special commodities, sugar and citrus. Nigeria, Ghana and Tanganyika do not wish to accept the offer.

This is naturally a matter for regret to us. It semed to many of us in negotiating this that this was an opportunity for removing at least some of the divisions in Africa which Europe has often been blamed for creating in the nineteenth century. It would not have removed them all, but we were not claiming to do that. The barriers between former French, Belgian, Dutch and Italian territories have been removed, and here was an opportunity of removing more of them. It is a matter of great regret that not all of that opportunity is being seized.

In his speech at Brighton, the right hon. Gentleman blamed French policy for this. The arrangements for association are Community policy. I do not wish now to enter into any discussion of the rights and wrongs of the policy of any particular colonial Power in the past, but Community policy in association must be separated from the policies which any of the former colonial Powers still follow towards the territories which were formerly associated with them. In other words, I have no doubt that the Commonwealth countries which accept association will expect us in the Council of Ministers and in other spheres if we become members to do our utmost to look after their interests, and quite rightly so. But that must be distinguished from any bilateral policies which we pursue towards Commonwealth countries, or which any other Power pursues.

The position now is that we proceed to negotiate alternative arrangements for the countries which do not wish to accept association. The right hon. Gentleman also said that these countries must not be penalised. There is no question of penalising a Commonwealth country which has decided not to accept association. Our endcavour is to negotiate alternative trading arrangements to protect their interests. At the first Brussels meeting, in October, I put forward certain guide lines to deal with this—that we must avoid damage to the economic interests of these countries, that we must take account of the interests of the existing and future associates which have undertaken the economic obligations of association, and that we must also look after the interests of the Commonwealth countries in particular commodities where they have not been offered association.

At the last Brussels meeting, I made proposals that there should be trade agreements or commercial arrangements with these Commonwealth countries and interim arrangements of various kinds meantime. I further asked that the opportunity to apply for association should be kept open for them, so that if there were a change in their policy, they should be able to come to the enlarged Community and ask that association should be arranged for them.

The present association consists of 55 million people. The additional associates for which the offer was made by the Community total 72 million people. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and other hon. Members would like to bear this fact in mind when they are considering whether or not the Community is outward looking in making suitable economic arrangements for the underdeveloped countries of Africa, the West Indies and the dependencies.

To sum up, therefore, economically this arrangement safeguarded the interests of these countries and opened up much wider markets to them.

I now turn to the arrangements for India, Pakistan and Ceylon. These consist of a number of individual arrangements in what might be termed a package. The first thing that I wish to discuss is the offer of comprehensive trade agreements. The right hon. Gentleman treated this with a certain amount of scorn and said that it was just an airy-fairy promise. It is nothing of the sort. It is a solemn obligation by the countries who would have to put their signature to it. The purpose of this trade agreement is to develop mutual trade for the purpose of maintaining and as much as possible increasing the level of foreign currency receipts of those countries, and, in general, facilitating the implementation of their development plans.

That, therefore, is a firm purpose—to maintain overall their foreign currency earnings and as much as possible to increase them. It is in the light of that undertaking that the other arrangements must be examined. This is, I believe, the first time that an offer of a trade agreement with a binding obligation of that kind has been made to any country. No British Government has made an offer of that kind to a Commonwealth country, to make a trade agreement to maintain, and as much as possible increase, foreign exchange earnings. This is the importance of the offer which is being made.

This is a very important point. Do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman says that if trade agreements are not reached which safeguard these purposes Her Majesty's Government will then be free to retain the existing Commonwealth preferences? If not, is he really pretending to compare the concessions which we have already agreed to make with vague promises for the future?

The hon. Gentleman refers to vague promises. I would have thought that he would have realised that Governments which make a promise of this kind are binding themselves with a very firm undertaking, and I have no doubt at all that the Governments of India, Pakistan, and of an enlarged Community are in earnest in negotiating a trade agreement of this kind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

I am coming to the question whether we should be free or not, because this deals with the Leader of the Opposition's point that these agreements ought to be negotiated before we go into the Community.

The arrangement for these agreements is that they should be concluded as soon as possible, that it should be not later than the end of 1966. This arrangement was made at the specific request of India, who wishes to be free to carry on negotiations until the end of 1966, again for a perfectly valid reason, that in that year, 1966, there will be qualified majority voting in the Community and not unanimous voting.

The agreement will be valid for a number of years and renewable. The means which can be used are set out in the arrangements, tariff policy, export policy, quota policy, the development of financial relations, and private investment, as well as technical assistance. The trade agreement therefore covers the whole of that field. [ Interruption. ]If the hon. Gentleman is going to carry on negotiations on the basis that everybody is working in bad faith, it will be impossible to negotiate at all.