asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now give an assurance that he will impose variable import levies on food stuffs imported into the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community, in the event of the United Kingdom not joining the Community.

It is clearly not appropriate to make any statement about what our policy would be towards a Community of which we were not members whilst we are still negotiating for membership of that Community.

While many of us hope that the negotiations will still be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, would it not be wise of my right hon. Friend to support the British agricultural markets in the event of failure, and would not he help these negotiations if he made some such plans?

I do not think that there is any question of not helping with the negotiations. If the negotiations are not brought to a successful conclusion, however, our agricultural policy will have to be fitted in with our broad trading policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the feasibility of developing tropical semi-tropical fish farms in special reservoirs supplied by water discharged from the Central Electricity Generating Board's power stations.

None, Sir. If the hon. Member is referring to the Central Electricity Generating Board's recent experiments, these are concerned mainly with assessing damage to fish by heated water and not with the possibility of developing fish famous.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this country is not sufficiently interested in fish farms? Is he not aware that if Britain goes into the Common Market the other members will be able to fish up to the beaches of this country and that, therefore, if we do not do something for fish fairmers and take advantage of all these experiments being held by the Central Electricity Generating Board and other parts of the industry, we shall have a lack of supplies of fish?

That is a much wider question. There is a later Question relating to this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the unemployment situation, what plans he has made for allocating more money for land drainage, flood prevention and other works for which he is responsible, so as to utilise more manpower.

The capital investment allocation for land drainage and flood prevention in 1963–64 is to be increased by £½ million, making a total of £8·4 million. This will enable river boards, internal drainage boards, and local authorities to make some increase in their scale of work, and to that extent have an effect on the level of employment in particular areas.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he in constant contact with his colleagues to see that as much as possible is expended now so that the unemployment situation may be relieved—to whatever extent it can be? Is he prepared to give an assurance that if he does not get the satisfaction that he wants, he will let us know, so that we can help him in the matter?

I am not anxious about this. A great deal of work on sea defences is already going on and is helping to provide local employment. However, most of these projects are long-term and take a good deal of planning. It is difficult to speed them up further.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether an increasing amount year by year has been spent on this work over the last few years?

The amount spent next year will be more than for this year. I am afraid that I do not have the figures for past years in my head.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner)? Many people who normally work on the land are now unemployed. While weather conditions are against employment at the moment, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of allocating more money for land drainage, as a good deal more could be done to improve land by drainage, and that would also bring welcome relief to the unemployed?

There is the increase of £500,000 in the Estimates which I have mentioned, but that is no answer to temporary unemployment which is brought about by the bad weather over a period of weeks which may come to an end at any time.

My right hon. Friend mentioned sea defences. Is he aware that in the vicinity of Skegness, where there is nearly 7 per cent. unemployment, there is a scheme ready for implementation? Will he bear that particularly in mind when considering matters such as these?

Yes, I will gladly look into that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects to receive the Report of the Working Party which is reviewing the problem of animal transport;

(2) If he will introduce legislation to exercise control over the conditions under which calves in transit are fed, and place restrictions on the distance they may be transported when destined for market and for slaughter.

Officials from my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have prepared proposals for revising and consolidating the various Transit of Animals Orders, and further provisions on the feeding and watering of animals in transit by road, rail and sea. Work on these is proceeding. I do not think, however, that it will be practical to try to limit the distances travelled.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these calves are pitifully helpless baby animals and that, if necessary, even the profit motive should be subordinated to their humane treatment? Will not he consider looking into the matter in order to try to insist upon localised slaughter so that these unfortunate little animals do not have to travel great distances without food and proper care? Will he take immediate steps to ban the resale of young calves for at least fourteen days after their original sale?

I do not believe that it is in any way the general practice to transport these calves for long distances. Indeed, it would not be economic to do so. The average value of these calves is only between £2 and £3 and it is only natural for the farmer to wish to send them to a market as close as possible. I agree that there are alterations to be made in the transport arrangements and, as I said in my main Answer, we are proceeding with those alterations. However, it is a fact of farming life that it is not economic to rear these animals on. They are therefore disposed of as early as possible, although I quite agree that we want to see that they are not caused unnecessary suffering.

Is not the truth of the matter that no transport regulations will prevent unnecessary suffering? Is not the solution to this problem regulations that these calves must not be moved alive from the farm until, say, fourteen days after birth, or must be slaughtered on the farm with a humane killer? Although they would then not be so valuable—'they would only be dog meat—the suffering would be limited.

I am certain that if such regulations were introduced—to provide that no calves could be moved from the farm until they were fourteen days old—many calves would be slaughtered on the farm. It is much less cruel for the calves to be slaughtered by experts in licensed slaughterhouses than by the farmer on the farm.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consult leaders of the Jewish community and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals with a view to setting up an inquiry into ritual slaughter satisfactory to both bodies.

As my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council has said in another place, if the Government were to receive a request for an inquiry which they were satisfied would meet with the requirements of the parties representing the conflicting views in this matter, we should give it sympathetic consideration.

In view of the widespread allegations and propaganda about ritual slaughter which have been circulated, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be better, from the point of view of both parties, if there were an official inquiry to put die public mind at rest?

The will of the House was last expressed on this matter as recently as 1956, when a proposal to change the law was rejected on a free vote. More recently, the matter was debated in another place and a Bill there was withdrawn. The Government would have to be satisfied that any proposal for an inquiry was acceptable to the orthodox Jewish community as well as to the opponents of ritual slaughter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the millers' grist consisted of home-grown wheat in each of the last five months of 1962; and how these proportions compare with those during the last five months of 1961.

With permission, I will circulate this information, which is a table of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Meanwhile, would my right hon. Friend say whether the millers are using a larger proportion of homegrown wheat in the grist during these winter months? Will he bear in mind that, because of the very large homegrown crop, he will have to meet an enormous bill for deficiency payments unless the millers can help him all they can?

There is precious little difference between the last five months of 1962 and the last five months of 1961—about 29 per cent. in 1962 compared with 30 per cent. in 1961. However, in November and December the proportion was higher last year than it was the year before. The National Association of British and Irish Millers has undertaken on behalf of the millers to endeavour to use at least 1¼ million tons of home-grown wheat in the grist and to exceed that target if possible. The millers are well aware of the obligations which rest upon them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he yet has received from the Essex River Board the revised drainage scheme for Mundon Wash.

No, Sir. But I understand 'that a draft of a revised scheme is to be discussed jointly by the engineers of the river board and this Ministry during the course of next week.

Can we expect some action to be taken and some work to be commenced on this project within the next six months?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that we shall examine this new scheme with the utmost expediency.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to recover the cost of helicopter services provided to farmers owning livestock on Dartmoor.

The Government have decided that the Exchequer should bear the cost of the helicopter and aircraft flights requested by my Department for the supply of fodder to farms, on Dartmoor and elsewhere in England and Wales, which are in urgent need and have been isolated by the recent blizzards. I shall be asking the House to approve a Supplementary Vote for this purpose when the final cost is known. The cost of the fodder delivered will be paid by the farmer to his supplier in the normal way.

Does the Minister realise that these commoners turn out their livestock for the winter without caring how the animals will survive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—without caring how the animals will survive, and then expect Service helicopters and voluntary organisations to come to the rescue without themselves making any contribution towards the very expensive costs of the helicopter services? Why should the taxpayer continue to subsidise these people in this way after they have been proved guilty of the grossest possible neglect?

What the hon. Member has said is not at all fair. As he knows, it is rare to have a cold spell as severe as this and lasting so long as this. This was a humanitarian action, 'the cost of which is out of proportion to the value of the animals. However, if we had not carried out this airlift there would have been even more severe losses.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Brixton is a very long way from Dartmoor, and that this is a very complicated matter? Is he also aware that it is a great pity that people who do not fully understand it should make sensational statements? Is he also aware that when the thaw comes, it may well be that the losses will be proved to be greater in the lower country, which is enclosed and where the drifts are worse, than on the open moor?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are very grateful for the services which have been provided in this way and for the manner in which he is helping to deal with the expenditure?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made to date in the Common Market negotiations for the protecting of British fishing interests generally, and inshore fishing in particular.

Fisheries are to be the subject of a common policy which has not yet been formulated by the Community. We have made known to them OUT views on this.

Is the right hom. Gentleman aware that Dr. Mansholt, the Vice-President of the European Economic Community, who is specially responsible for fisheries problems, said that

"for the members of the Community territorial waters and fishing zones can no longer exist."

What action is the night hon. Gentleman taking to protect the interests of inshore fishermen in British territorial waters?

Without seeing the context in which that remark was made I could not comment on it. Further, I do not understand it, because at the moment there is no common fisheries policy. It has not yet been drawn up by the Community, and so the words which the hon. Gentleman has read could not apply at the present time.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's entry into the E.E.C. would entail negotiating common fishery limits under the Treaty of Rome? Would not he also agree that if our entry into the Common Market is to be delayed he should give serious consideration to extending the three-mile limit which is bearing very hardly on inshore fishermen?

Of course, it would entail negotiation between the present members of the Community let alone the additional members, before formulating a common fishing policy. As to the extent of limits outside the context of the Common Market, this goes wider than the Question, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the question of limits is constantly being kept under review as the circumstances change.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware how important this industry is even to the very small communities throughout the land? Certainly in Scotland it is extremely important that their interests should be safeguarded, because their very livelihood depends on it. May we have an assurance that any settlement which is effected will be satisfactory to our home industry, and that it will not be presented with a fait accompliafter some agreement has been reached with regard to the rest of the negotiations that are taking place?

Our position with regard to a common fisheries policy is bound to be left open and in no way closed if these negotiations are brought to a conclusion in a reasonable time. There is as yet no common fisheries policy and there would not be a timetable drawn up until after the conclusion of the negotiations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will relax existing restrictions on the importation of live and dead poultry following the introduction of the fowl pest vaccination policy.

I have decided following the recommendations of the Plant Committee to allow the importation of breeding stock and hatching eggs where this is likely to be of benefit to the commercial stock in this country. Any importation will be made only under strict veterinary control. There will be no relaxation on the importation of poultry carcases as we cannot afford the risk of adding to the extent of infection.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the precise restrictions on poultry will be relaxed or retained if we enter the Common Market?

The Treaty of Rome provides explicitly for regulations for animal health to be continued within the Community.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that these restrictions will remain entirely as they are at the moment?

This is a question of animal health. Whether they will remain entirely as they are at present has nothing to do with the Common Market. Article 36 sets out that regulations in the interests of improving the animal health position An any country may remain in force.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the expenditure on new works completed in the Cyprus Sovereign Base areas since the new Defence Plan was published; and what is the proposed further expenditure there.

£13·5 million, plus £4 million on new works approved to date.

If, as is well known, the number of British troops is diminishing there, why are the Government spending millions on new military works? Secondly, would the Minister give the House an assurance that there is no connection with a nuclear or rocket base on the island?

The money is being spent to build accommodation for troops either there or planned to be there.

Would the Minister answer the second part of my supplementary question? Will he give the House an assurance that there is no connection with nuclear or rocket bases on the island?

These are barracks and accommodation for our Air Force and for the ground troops stationed there. I would certainly give no assurance as between nuclear and conventional weapons.

asked the Minister of Defence what is now the position with regard to the Skybolt missile.

The United States Government are terminating all production in connection with the Skybolt programme.

Will the Minister say what consideration has been given to the possibility of extending the range of Blue Steel and perhaps developing a further type of British air missile? Could he also explain why he thinks he is any more likely to get Polaris than Skybolt?

That is quite a different series of questions.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the renewed failure of the Skybolt missile, he will make a statement on its future role in Bomber Command.

The question no longer arises since Her Majesty's Government have announced their intention not to proceed with the Skybolt missile.

If the right hon. Gentleman followed Questions he would know that this Question was put down long before that decision was reached. Will he tell us whether he disagreed or agreed with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who is chairman of the Tory back bench defence committee, when he said that Skybolt was a perfectly efficient weapon? In view of that, why did not the Government take Skybolt when they got the chance of having it? Was it because Polaris, which is still unproved, will be cheaper than Skybolt would have been?

This Question asked what its future role is in Bomber Command. It has not got one.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance on this matter?

Either it is a point of order or it is not. I do not give guidance free of charge.

May I have your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Members often put down Questions which are not reached until long after they are tabled. Surely we are entitled to an answer to the supplementary question which arises from the Question, whether the right hon. Gentleman seeks to evade it or not?

That is not a point of order. It is not for this reason, that the Chair has no power to compel a Minister to give any answer of any kind, good or bad.

asked the Minister of Defence what steps are taken to check that those with access to nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom are free from mental instability, drunkenness or other tendencies dangerous in the circumstances.

There are stringent selection and training procedures for officers and men dealing with nuclear or indeed other type of weapons. These are our main safeguard. As regards nuclear weapons, no one man can initiate their use.

If such precautions have to be taken, both here and in America, are not they an admission that a catastrophic accident could, in fact, occur? Secondly, is the Minister certain that it is possible without fail to detect such tendencies?

I think that it would be very dangerous to have anyone who was drunk or mentally unstable in charge of any weapon.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give this assurance, because I think that it would comfort some people? Can he give an assurance that no single person, however mad, however drunk, however violent or however hard he tried could explode an atomic weapon?

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think the important thing is to ensure that it takes more than one man to explode the weapon, and that is so.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give further details of the operations in Brunei.

I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I should like to add my tribute to the courage and resolution of the Services, all ranks of whom have reacted swiftly and effectively to the calls made upon them, and my sympathy for the relatives of those who have lost their lives.

I thank my right hon. Friend for issuing a detailed report, which I am sure we will study with great interest. Does not he agree that the British officers and Gurkha ranks of the l/2nd Gurkha Rifles acquitted themselves superbly in this operation, particularly in the original fly-in, which had to be conducted at night, on a strange aerodrome, and then in a night operation which had to be carried out in an unknown town, in view of the urgency of the situation, thus making the rest of the operations comparatively easy?

The Gurkhas discharged their duties with the skill and courage which we have grown to expect of them.

Following is the statement:

As a result of a review of the state of readiness by the Commander-in-Chief, Far East, several days before, forces were at about 12 hours' notice when help was requested by the Sultan of Brunei to deal with the attempt to overthrow his Government which was made early on the morning of 8th December, 1962. The first troops began to arrive by R.A.F. aircraft the same evening, and within a new days a well-balanced force was built up. At its peak this included three major Army units, two Royal Marine Commandos and additional small elements, and 11 ships of the Royal Navy, including supply ships. The R.A.F. was operating short and long-range transport, fighter and photographic reconnaissance air craft. Naval helicopters from H.M.S. "Albion" were also operating in the area.

The forces were at first under the command of Brigadier J. B. A. Glennie; he was succeeded by Major-General W. C. Walker who became Director of Operations.

As the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies announced on 20th December, these forces, working with the police forces, had by then restored order in the main centres and secured the release of all hostages. The main military operation was therefore completed last month, but security forces have been continuing to round up rebels and to recover arms and ammunition. Their attention has turned more to outlying areas, but operations are at present hampered by rains and serious flooding and are taking second-place to flood relief work. The Services have been giving all-out help in difficult conditions which in some areas are the worst in living memory. A British soldier died on patrol last week while crossing a flooded river.

Total British Service casualties in the operation were eight killed and 28 wounded. Between 50 and 60 rebels were killed and about 2,000 taken prisoner.

This military operation shows that our conventional forces are poised ready to deal with any brushfire outbreak, that their reaction time is swift, and that inter-Service co-operation is of the highest order.

asked the Minister of Defence what are the weapons now available to the United Kingdom included in the nuclear deterrent.

The V-bombers equipped with Blue Steel and free-falling bombs.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that several of these nuclear deterrent weapons are likely to be outmoded in the course of a few years? As there is some speculation about the usefulness of the Polaris submarines, has he any proposals to make for the purpose of guaranteeing their adequate defence?

There is speculation about many things, but this is the nuclear deterrent today. It is an extremely effective one. It will remain effective, and it will be powerfully reinforced with the introduction of the Polaris submarine.

But has not the right hon. Gentleman himself asserted that several of the existing nuclear weapons will be outmoded in the course of a few years? Undoubtedy there is speculation about the advantage of the Polaris submarine. Does the right hon. Gentleman's mind not torn in the direction of more conventional weapons?

My mind takes account of both nuclear and conventional weapons.

asked the Minister of Defence what steps he now intends to take to maintain an independent British nuclear deterrent between 1965 and 1970; and what the estimated cost of such measures will be.

asked the Minister of Defence what is the likely duration of the gap between the time when the Royal Air Force bombers cease to provide an effective deterrent and the time when the Polaris missile will be an operational part of United Kingdom forces; and if he will make a statement on Government defence policy during that gap.

I would ask the hon. Members to await next week's debate.

Can the Minister give us any idea in this instance of what the additional cost will be? Can he further say why we want this independent nuclear deterrent? Against whom do we expect to use it?

We have a deterrent to deter other people from threatening us.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in their desperation the Government have resumed a policy which they abandoned when they 6rst decided to buy the Sky bolt missile, namely, to try to develop a British independent deterrent for the years between now and 1970? If the policy was unrealistic two or three years ago, why is it realistic now?

As far as I know, it has been realistic throughout.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's references to next week's debate and his previous failure to answer questions about costs, will he undertake that when the debate comes along he will give the House the fullest information about this in every detail—as full information as that which he gave the Tory back bench committee?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that categoric assurance even before the debate.

In response to the clamour from the benches opposite to abandon the British nuclear deterrent, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that any reliance to a larger extent upon conventional forces would inevitably mean the reintroduction of conscription?

A policy of greatly Increased conventional forces would mean a reintroduction of conscription. Indeed, there are some who urge this as an alternative. Our own policy is to have a balanced force of conventional and nuclear weapons.

asked the Minister of Defence what is his estimate of the increase in Britain's defence budget in the next few years involved in the decisions taken at the Bahamas meetings.

The strategic nuclear deterrent is expected to take about 10 per cent. of the defence budget next year. It is too early to say anything about subsequent years.

Does that mean that the decisions were taken at the Bahamas meeting without any estimate being made of what the cost would be to Britain in the next few years?

Forward costings of projects as complex as this are not too reliable, and I would rather not tie myself to a precise percentage.

What was the right hon. Gentleman's estimate, on the basis of the decision taken at the Bahamas meeting, of the cost of the defence budget for the next five or ten years?

I did not think that a firm estimate could be made.

In pinning his faith to this weapon, is not the Minister himself indulging in a great deal of speculation?

Speculation, and intelligent anticipation.

In view of the recent reports of the Public Accounts Committee about the appalling miscalculations of the Defence Ministry on costs connected with missiles and atomic weapons, will the Minister think again about giving the House some information? Is it not a fact that when he came bouncing back from the Bahamas and appeared on television he was prepared to make sweeping categoric statements about what it would not cost? Could not the House of Commons be taken into his confidence?

It is easy to say what it would not cost, but I was asked to compare the cost of this with the cost of Skybolt. As one of the principal reasons for the Americans abandoning Skybolt was that it was impossible to cost it, it is obviously difficult to make a comparison between the two.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the considerable operational and technical training problems which will require solution before the first British Polaris submarine joins the fleet, he will approach the United States Secretary of Defence with a view to a loan by the United States Navy to the Royal Navy of one American Mark I Polaris submarine equipped with dummy warheads and provided with adequate United States instructional personnel.

The problem of operational and technical training of crews for British Polaris submarines is among those being discussed with the United States naval authorities. Her Majesty's Government will take whatever steps are necessary in the light of those discussions, but I cannot anticipate their outcome.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that such a loan would be within the spirit of the Nassau agreement? Would not he perhaps further agree that an extension of this principle might provide a distinct contribution towards bridging the so-called missile gap?

The second part of that supplementary question raises a different point. The Question asks about training in particular. The relations between the Royal Navy and the American Navy are extremely close and cordial. These discussions are going very well. I will consider all these suggestions, but at the moment I would rather await the outcome of these discussions.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we shall be subject to adopting the American technique of training and the American communications system for the effectiveness of this Polaris force, and will not this mean that the deterrent will be more American than British?

We do not want to be so jealous that we do not pay the slightest attention to the experience of any other Navy in the operating of these submarines.

Would it not be better to abandon this rather transparent defence of this nuclear deterrent which is supposed to be ours, and get on with some conventional arms of our own?

If we were prepared to strip ourselves of all powers to have any form of nuclear deterrent, yes—but that would be a very large issue.

asked the Minister of Defence if existing British communications systems are adequate to ensure the reception of operational messages by Her Majesty's submarines when submerged.

Yes, Sir.

In view of the references made by hon. and right hon. Members opposite to recent television programmes, will my right hon. Friend make sure that this technical point is brought to the particular attention of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)?

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be studying these Questions.

Communications with Polaris submarines are on the N.A.T.O. network, and are intended to be on the N.A.T.O. network. If they are out of the N.A.T.O. network, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to duplicate the whole of this signalling system? If so, what does he think the cost will be?

Our communications with our own submarines will be entirely within our own control.

Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations before making this reply? Is not he aware that in 1959 the Minister then occupying his office rejected Polaris on the specific ground that it was detectable and vulnerable and, in fact, would require a very expensive communications and supply system, which did not exist?

This Question refers to our communications with our own submarines. In view of the great deal of speculation that has gone on, I want to make it clear beyond peradventure that these communications are under our own control. They are our own, and there is no technical difficulty whatsoever.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is the closest possible co-operation, in connection with developments in these measures of under-water communication, between the Americans and ourselves? Will he further say that we will use all these developments for our own submarines when they come into service?

There are the closest relations. They are being helpful in every way.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the examination of the higher organisation of defence and the possible reorganisation of his Department and the Service Departments.

An examination is being made to see whether any changes in the central organisation for defence are desirable in the light of developments in our armed forces and military strategy since the current arrangements were announced in the 1958 White Paper. Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob have kindly agreed to assist me with consideration of this problem. The House will, of course, be informed of any changes which the Government may decide to make as a result of this examination.

Is it not a fact that the decision about Polaris could bring up such questions as the future of the Royal Air Force and the conventional Navy, and is it not, therefore, the psychological moment to start a long-term investigation into the possible future amalgamation of the Services? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the statement he has made could cover this question?

It could cover it. But I should not like to give the impression that I was contemplating amalgamating all the Services. The main purpose of this consideration is directed to the central organisation.

Was it necessary to appoint a committee consisting of Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob to undertake this task? Is not it the case that in the last ten years we have had eight or nine Ministers of Defence, and have not they made up their minds, on the basis of their own experience, that the existence of three Service Departments, with the Ministry of Defence, is completely outmoded and that what is desirable is a form of integration?

There might be something in that comment if I had appointed a committee. But it is not a committee. I have asked two very distinguished soldiers, with great experience in the central organisation of defence, to help me in working out the answers to some of these problems.

I recognise that few people have greater experience of the machinery of Government in connection with defence than has Lord Ismay in relation to the period both before and during the Second World War. But can my right hon. Friend give us more indication of what were the terms of reference given to Lord Ismay and Sir Ian Jacob?

Only to the extent that a great deal of consideration—as was said by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—has been given over the years to the question of how best the central organisation for defence should be run, including what should be its relations with Chiefs of Staff, the Service Ministries and the rest. There has been a great deal of argument about whether there ought to be more centralisation or less. A number of plans have been made and various suggestions advanced inside and outside the Department. In considering them, and any ideas of my own, I thought it would be helpful to call in, not a committee, but two men who, as will be acknowledged from both sides of the House, have special experience in this field, to help me form my conclusions about what. should be the next step.

May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that at the end of the last war the appreciation was that in any future war one of the first tasks of the Army would be in connection with Civil Defence? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered all this in connection with the defence of the country? Is he bringing in the matter of the organisation of Civil Defence as part of this large question?

The question of the organisation of Civil Defence is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. These things are linked and I will bear in mind the suggestion he has made.

Will the Minister make arrangements for a debate on Civil Defence during the coming months?

It does not quite fall within my responsibilities to arrange the business of the House. But I will pass on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion through the usual channels.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the ways and means of implementing the Nassau Agreement.

Ways and means are being discussed both with the Americans and in the N.A.T.O. Council.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in the development of the Polaris submarine fleet there will be no increase in defence expenditure and no standstill in supplying their requirements OR in the development of the other Services? Secondly, can he give the House an assurance that in the 1970s, by the time when we should have built our small contribution, the Polaris submarine will still be an effective deterrent?

I have every reason to suppose that the Polaris submarine will be a very significant deterrent for many years to come. But I certainly cannot give an undertaking to build it free. It is bound to cost money. There is nothing I cam do to prevent that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the proposed size of the Polaris programme, or when can he toll Che House what it will be in terms of numbers?

I may not tell the hon. Gentleman that. I hope, perhaps later, to say what is the initial number to be laid down—not at this stage but later on. I do not? necessarily say it is the total number which may be completed.

asked the Minister of Defence how many ratings and other ranks of the three armed Services are in receipt of Service pensions; how many widows of ratings and other ranks receive ordinary Service widows' pensions; and bow many widows of ratings and other ranks receive no Service widows' pensions at all.

As the Answer consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether that information will contain figures showing the number of widows who do not get pensions?

I will try to ensure that it does, and if not I will have the information inserted.

Will the Minister consider seriously the debate on Service men's pensions and the Royal Warrant which took place just before the Christmas Recess with a view to remedying the hardship suffered by some widows of Service men?

I have studied that debate and will certainly give it consideration.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the first Polaris-carrying submarine will be laid down, and what is the estimated time it will take to bring such a vessel into service.

I have been asked to reply.

Design work has already started. It is too soon to say when the first submarine will be laid down or in service.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the so-called missile gap? Is not it well within the capability of British shipyards to launch Polaris submarines and put them into commission before the V-bomber force is obsolete?

It is certainly within the capacity of British shipyards to put the Polaris fleet into service and I hope at a reasonably early date. As to the missile gap, I do not accept that there is a gap, although no doubt there will be a period when enemy defence is growing in strength and we shall be doing something about that. I think it will be dealt with in the debate.

When he was in America did the Minister make inquiries about what profits American armament manufacturers are likely to make out of the Polaris submarine business?

No. But I was satisfied that there was immense defence profit to this country from going into this project.

Is it not a fact that"Dreadnought"was laid down three and a half years ago and that she has not yet dived and that this period is about twice the interval taken by the Americans in similar circumstances? Can he guarantee that the Polaris programme will not be lengthened by such a tremendous amount of time?

In so far as the Royal Navy and the shipyards can provide, I have every reason to believe that we shall get an effective submarine at the earliest possible date.

Can the Minister say at what speed it is intended to proceed with this programme? Are we to start with one, two or three submarines? What kind of programme has he in mind?

At this moment the design work has started and that is the first thing. As that starts we can begin to place contracts. At the appropriate moment I shall say something about how the streams of production will start. I was not proposing to say so at the moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say from what source we shall obtain the rich uranium to power the submarines? Shall we be dependent on American supplies?

I think that question has been answered. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about uranium I will see that it is answered.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the public protest made by the Glamorgan Territorial Army Forces Association concerning the dwellings in which they have to operate; and what proposals he has for improved accommodation conditions for these men.

I am aware of a report which appeared in the Western Mail on 20th December, 1962. Brigadier Hurford was referring to a few of the married quarters held by the Glamorgan Association for the Regular Army permanent staff attached to the local Territorial Army units, and I regret that the remarks attributed to him in the newspaper were only a partial report and give a wrong impression of the real state of affairs. The Association holds 48 married quarters, and those built since the War are well situated in residential areas and constructed to modern standards; those criticised were built at the turn of the century and are not where we should put them now.

Do I understand that the Minister is expressing satisfaction with the accommodation? If not, can he give an idea how long it will be before the quarters described as "slums" will be put out of operation? Will he make a further statement?

In the context of the discussion in which the remarks were made reference was being made by the brigadier to the location of these quarters, a few of which are in areas a good deal less fashionable than those in which we build modern quarters. With regard to the Glamorgan association and other associations throughout the country, the modernising and bringing up to date of their quarters is entirely satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for War how much pension an Army captain's widow with one child who lost her husband on 3rd November, 1958, receives; and how much she would receive if her husband had retired on the 1962 Code and died today, assuming in both cases that the widow is 50 years old and the husband had completed maximum service.

£183 18s. 0d. a year and £322 4s. 0d. a year respectively.

Does my hon. Friend think it right or fair that one of two such widows, both of the same age and both of whose husbands had the same kind of service, should receive a pension nearly twice as big as that of the other widow?

It is very difficult to get this question into perspective by She process of question and answer. We had a debate covering all these matters shortly before Christmas. I would refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend said on this question in his speech during that debate.

Most unsatisfactory.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion was wholly unsatisfactory and that the older widows have not been fairly treated?

Having gone into this with great care, as my hon. Friends know, I am afraid we still can find no basis on which to distinguish between those who became widows before 1958 and any other category of Service pension.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the complexities mentioned in his letter dated early in 1962 to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, relating to the provision of a pontoon dock for Aberdeen, he will now make a statement indicating when the construction of the pontoon dock will commence and how long it will take to complete.

I understand that the Aberdeen Harbour Board still has the matter under consideration.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has been under consideration far too long? There has been undue delay. Prompt attention to it would go far to solve the unemployment problem in the northeast of Scotland, not only for those who plan the docks, but for those who do the actual work. It would enable Aberdeen shipbuilding firms to undertake the building of larger ships which are the fashion of today. Will he see that the matter is expedited?

I think the hon. and learned Member understands that this is a matter for the Aberdeen Harbour Board. It is considering it. I understand it is also taking into account the question of building a slipway rather than a pontoon dock.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the large shoals of small herring coming into the Forth and the numbers being destroyed in the Kincardine Power Station cooling system; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the possibilities of a return of the herring to the Forth.

There are very few small herring in the Forth at present, but sprats have increased substantially this winter. Recently exceptional numbers of sprats penetrated the protecting screens at the cooling system intake and were destroyed. Over a period, however, losses at the intake have been only a very small percentage of catches of herring and sprats in the Forth and it does not seem that they will materially affect the fishery prospects.

While the information about herrings seems to be about red herrings in this case, in the case of sprats could the hon. Gentleman take account of the experience at the Portobello Station where there was trouble of this kind caused by mussels blocking up the machinery? Can he see whether this solution can be repeated at Kincardine by reversing the flow in and out?

We are conducting further research into the most effective way of developing a protective screen.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern in West Fife due to the continued shortage in the provision of maternity beds; and what steps he intends to take to improve the position.

Yes, Sir; the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board intends to provide thirty additional beds at the Dunfermline Maternity Hospital as soon as its resources permit, but other schemes now in hand or being planned for Fife must take priority.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that does not get us very far? Can he tell the House how soon this extra provision will be made? Can he say whether there will be any provision in the Glenrothes area of the constituency because in some cases people are having to travel many miles where there are inadequate transport facilities and this is causing very great hardship?

I know that local concern is felt about this, but I cannot say anything further about the date because it is a matter for the regional hospital board to fix priorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the capital expenditure involved in projects for road improvements in Scotland for which the necessary plans are complete or at an advanced stage, but which are awaiting the allocation of resources, including both direct Government expenditure and grants to local authorities.

For trunk road schemes for which necessary plans are complete or at an advanced stage, £8½ million; of these I expect to authorise schemes amounting to about £5½ million in the next six months. I regret that comparable information is not available in respect of classified roads.

Is it not clear from the figures which the Under-Secretary has given that the expenditure involved is capable of yielding a large amount of employment in Scotland? Would it not therefore be of tremendous assistance in the present unemployment crisis in Scotland if he were to speed the process of giving final approvals and consider extending the programme as it stands at the moment?

It is for this very reason that I expect to authorise the expenditure of £5½ million in the next six months.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total capital expenditure involved in plans submitted to him by regional hospital boards which have not yet been given final approval.

The major projects in the ten-year Hospital Plan are naturally at various stages of preparation, but none is being held up for final approval.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that, although none may be held up at the moment for final approval, the regional hospital boards have a number of projects with which they are anxious to proceed and which are urgently needed? If a global sum were allocated by the Government for the purpose of expanding expenditure of this kind on the service, that would make a tremendous contribution in the unemployment crisis. Will he ask the Secretary of State to give consideration to this?

The hon. Lady will be aware that additional expenditure on smaller capital works in areas with high unemployment has been authorised. She will also be aware of the steadily expanding expenditure on major programmes in the ten years hospital capital development plan.

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the total capital expenditure involved in the nine projects to which he referred?

It varies between the boards' areas and in respect of the very differing priorities and needs, but the hon. Member will know that the programme for Scotland as a whole has expanded from £4 million last year to £5 million this year and £6·8 million for next year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been asking for and hoping to get an expanded programme of public works in view of the present unemployment situation? Is there any indication from the Government that we shall get that? Is he taking the opportunity of asking the Chancellor to help us in relation to burdens on local authorities which might crop up and impede such a programme?

I have referred to what has already been done. I cannot add to that at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to make his final observations on the recommendations contained in the Toothill Report.

The Toothill Report includes a number of recommendations which the Scottish Council itself recognises require further study by it. Others involve other organisations and agencies, including industry itself. Those which concern matters of Government policy have been and are being most actively studied, and many of them are already being acted upon.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been hearing that reply for nearly twelve months now? Does he not realise that this Report has been before us for fifteen months and these recommendations were supposed to help to provide more jobs in Scotland, which needs them badly? Will he say whether or not the Secretary of State believes that to be so? If he does, why is he fiddling over the matter and not coming to a quicker decision in view of the urgency of the time in which we live?

As I said in answer to the Question, which is about my right hon. Friend's final observations, studies by people other than the Government are here involved.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we welcome the Toothill proposals, we would welcome the reply of the Government? Does he realise that any failure or slowness in replying to the Toothill proposals does not absolve the Government from taking action of their own and that is what we want them to do?

The Government have already made observations on the Toothill Report and I am sure the hon. Member knows about them.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many surplus Britannia aircraft the Chinese Government have asked to purchase and at what price; and if he will make a statement on the negotiations.

I have been asked to reply. At the invitation of B.O.A.C. a party of Chinese technicians in this country were recently shown some Britannia aircraft which belong to 'the Corporation and are surplus to their current requirements. The Chinese have not so far made any offer to buy these aircraft.

Will my hon. Friend say how many there were of these machines, what they have cost us and whether there has been any pressure from American interests to prevent us from selling these machines which we ourselves do not need?