asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to issue a detailed programme of the scientific research and discovery in oceanography which is now in progress by the international fleet, including the£800,000 royal research ship "Discovery", indicating the differences in scientific apparatus in each ship; and what is the necessity for the concentration of a large fleet in the Indian Ocean instead of exploring the North Sea and fishing grounds further north.

Yes, Sir, I am arranging for a copy of the United Kingdom scientific programmes during the International Indian Ocean Expedition to be forwarded to the hon. and learned Member.

I thank the Civil Lord for that Answer, but may I ask whether he agrees that this great international effort provides a splendid opportunity for bringing into harmony and co-operative work fishing fleets which have recently not always been in harmony? If they were in harmony, would not this be for the benefit of the British nation and the consumers of fish in this country?

As someone who was trained as a scientist, I would say that this venture in the Indian Ocean brings harmony in scientific research rather than harmony between fishing fleets. There is continuing research, particularly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, into the fishing grounds and scientific problems in the northern area.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what are his plans for H.M.S. "Belfast".

As I informed the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) last week, H.M.S. "Belfast" is to be placed in reserve and will. I hope, remain available for a number of years with the Royal Navy.

Can my hon. Friend assure me that he does not mean in reserve awaiting disposal? Does he agree that, in view of our great shortage of cruisers, this vessel has several useful years of operational life ahead of her?

I completely agree.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps the Admiralty will now take to help shipbuilding areas of high unemployment by placing orders within these districts.

We have just placed orders for three tankers. These orders have been placed with firms in the North-East of England as a result of competitive tenders. Firms in Ulster, Merseyside and the Clyde also tendered. When inviting tenders for these ships, we had intended ordering only two but we have now found it possible to order a third ship.

The decision to which the hon. Gentleman has referred has given considerable pleasure in the North-East, but will he bear in mind that the North-East is not merely a land of three rivers and that, in addition to the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees, there is also the River Blyth, and we are situated in a development district? Will he keep this in mind when considering future action? Also, may we take it that it will not be a precedent that every time Viscount Hailsham visits the North-East we shall receive orders for ships the day before?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his supplementary question. Unfortunately, most shipbuilding areas are also areas of high unemployment, so it is not just confined to the North-East. On the second point, it was the merit of the shipbuilders in the North-East and their highly competitive tendering which secured this order, on which they should be congratulated.

While competitive tendering is, perhaps, not always possible, will my hon. Friend agree that, in the main, it is a very good thing in that it leads to efficiency and gives an area of high unemployment an incentive, through its shipyards and their efficiency, to help itself? Will he further agree that the winning of a tender reflects enormous credit, confidence and courage on the shipbuilders of the Tyne in the 10 years in that they have modernised their yards?

I agree. I think that the next challenge to the shipbuilding areas is the opportunity they will have to compete for the orders for the two replenishment ships whose value will be about that of the orders for the tankers.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he expects to put out to tender the type of naval contracts referred to in his letter of 27th January, 1963, to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs.

In my letter of 27th January I assured the hon. Member that a particular shipbuilding firm in his constituency would continue to be given opportunities to tender for Admiralty work for which its facilities were considered suitable. I regret that I cannot forecast when we shall be inviting such tenders.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very disappointing reply? In view of the fact that earlier this afternoon he said that he has brought forward other ships much sooner than expected, will he not give an assurance that he will consider bringing forward this type of contract this year rather than waiting till next year?

This particular shipyard is better suited for the small type of ship. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said when considering our programme.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent, and in what branches of the Navy, recruiting has fallen short of requirements.

In the first 10 months of the recruiting year 1962–63 the entry of R.N. ratings and R.M. other ranks was 6,250 which was 200 or 3 per cent. short of the overall target for the period. Recruiting for a number of branches was fully up to our needs but there were some shortfalls in the seaman, communications, naval airman, naval air mechanic, sick berth and steward branches.

Can my hon. Friend give me any idea when these shortfalls are likely to be made good? Is the present trend of recruiting sufficiently satisfactory for him to think that these difficulties will be overcome in the near future?

We have looked at our whole recruiting organisation. We have improved our recruiting offices, or careers offices, as we call them, by putting them in better places and modernising them. The whole aspect of our recruiting has been re-examined, and I hope that we shall meet our target for the future.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Admiralty is recruiting a sufficient number for the electrical branches?

I should like to have notice of that supplementary question, because it really breaks down into the artificer apprentices in various branches. This has been a problem in the past. At present, young boys are coming forward in numbers because they realise the value of electrical skills, not only in the Royal Navy, but in civilian life thereafter.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the policy of the Government to spread the work on the Polaris-type submarines as widely as possible, so as to give experience in the construction of these larger submarines at least to the three shipyards which are used to building conventional submarines.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) last Wednesday.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the desirability of spreading both the necessary "know-how" and the machine tools, particularly in view of the fact that these yards are on the North-West Coast and in the Greenock area? Is there any hope of future orders for conventional submarines coming to these yards?

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is, probably not from the Royal Navy, but no doubt there will be keen competitive tendering for the two "Oberon" submarines, orders for which we are placing on behalf of the Australian Government in the near future.

What steps are being taken to ensure that when these orders are accepted there is considerable pressure placed on the firms concerned to build these submarines as quickly as possible?

One of the advantages of competitive tendering is that the firms well realise that if they do not get on with the job they may exceed the price and show no profit on the work that they are undertaking.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will spread the orders for new surface ships and for Polaris and other submarines over major shipbuilding yards where redundancy is heaviest.

It has been the policy for the past two-and-a-half years to place shipbuilding orders on the results of competitive tender whenever possible. In practice nearly all such orders have gone to shipbuilding firms in areas of unemployment. In the Polaris programme technical considerations and delivery dates will be of over-riding importance.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Harland and Wolff's yard, as a result of recent modernisation with prefabrication sheds and particularly heavy cranes, is capable of building a Polaris-type submarine as rapidly and as cheaply as any yard in the country? Also, it has recent experience of working round the clock on naval orders.

I have paid two visits to that yard and I am aware of its modernisation and the results. I would remind my hon. Friend that, although naturally one would wish that it won more orders, Ulster has had£27 million worth of Royal Navy orders in the past 10 years.

The hon. Gentleman did not reply to the latter part of the supplementary question about other submarines. Are we to assume that the Admiralty is not proceeding with any other submarines because of the Polaris programme?

What I said was that we were unlikely to order further conventional submarines other than those which have already been announced.

If, as my hon. Friend has said, delivery dates are of overriding importance, will he seek the co-operation of hon. Members opposite in trying to persuade the trade unions concerned to work three shifts?

I am sure that, in a national plan of this sort, we shall have the co-operation of everybody on both sides of the House to try to get this programme completed.

Am I right in saying that the hon. Gentleman last Wednesday assured me that competitive tendering was not now the only method of ordering these new ships? Am I to take it that he is making a real attempt, as I thought he said last Wednesday, to spread the work among those areas which need it, such as Clydeside?

This Question refers to Polaris submarines. If we can keep to that—

Not just to Polaris.

I am sorry. The earlier part of the Question refers to spreading

"the orders for new surface ships".

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what increase in staff at Admiralty headquarters is expected as a result of the decision to build a fleet of Polaris submarines.

There will undoubtedly be a need for increase, but I cannot give any precise estimate just yet.

Once again could the hon. Gentleman say to what extent the Polaris programme will be carried out without interfering with the programme for more conventional vessels? Is he aware that we on this side of the House at least prefer to proceed with the conventional vessels rather than with Polaris?

It is our intention to do exactly the same. We fully realise the importance of conventional operations to Her Majesty's Navy.

asked the Civil Lard of the Admiralty whether it is intended to develop a new type of nuclear reactor to power the British Polaris submarines, or whether it is intended to use one similar to that being installed in the smaller and second Dreadnought class hunter-killer submarine.

The reactors in these submarines will be similar to that in H.M.S. "Valiant."

Will the Admiralty try to impress upon the Atomic Energy Authority the importance of pressing on with nuclear reactors and of paying rather more attention to them and rather less to the development of very costly power stations?

I will certainly draw that point to the attention of the Authority.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent it will be necessary to build other naval vessels to co-operate with Polaris submarines; and what kind of new ships and naval aircraft will be necessary for this purpose.

According to our present information and plans, none, Sir.

Has the Civil Lord not noticed these extra claims, since not only will there be the cost of the Polaris submarines but there will be needed other vessels—escort vessels and other vessels to protect the Polaris submarines? Does he not think there will be added to the present total cost a considerable cost of extra expenditure.

I am not concerned with the operational problems of other nations. I am concerned with the operational problems of this nation. We are not at present planning to build support ships for these submarines.

Is any research taking place into the question of the Hawker 1154 multi-jet and vertical take-off aircraft for use by the Navy?

That would really be a question for the Ministry of Aviation, because it acts as our agent in this matter.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to what extent he is satisfied with the progress made by the Royal Navy in its plans for discovering the movements of Russian submarines; and if he will make a statement.

This is a problem to which I can assure the hon. Member that we devote great care and effort; but I do not think it would be in the public interest to make any statement about our progress.

Does the Minister recollect that recently the publicity department of the Admiralty issued a statement saying that a great deal of progress had been made by Coastal Command in detecting submarines? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made yesterday by a Russian admiral that the Russians can now detect Polaris submarines? Does he not think that my 1968 all this Polaris business will be obsolete?

No. I cannot be responsible for Russian admirals' statements. We are making considerable progress in the detection of submarines, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that detecting a submarine which is proceeding under water, which is moving and thus making noise, is a very different question from detecting a submarine which is lying, perhaps absolutely stationary, very deep on the ocean bed. Because we are making progress on the detection of the former does not mean we are anywhere near solving the problem of detecting the latter.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men he has discharged from Her Majesty's Dockyard, Malta this year; and what further discharges are anticipated in the near future.

Discharges resulting from the decision to run down the naval base over the next four years began on 4th January this year and number 80 to date. By 31st March this year a further 10 will be discharged. These figures exclude normal wastage and voluntary retirement.

If the Royal Navy has no further use for this dockyard, is the hon. Gentleman exploring the possibility of an alternative use in view of the absence of other work in Malta? Is he considering the possibility, for example, of using it as a training centre, or as a naval base or in some other way?

Perhaps I could clear up the slight confusion in terms. In the Question, the hon. Gentleman uses the term "Her Majesty's Dockyard". The dockyard is no longer Her Majesty's. It is now administered by Messrs. Bailey. That is why in the reply I referred to "the naval base". There is a continuing need for the naval base, although there will be a run-down, as I forecast. I will examine the other points which the hon. Gentleman raised.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the transfer of the dockyard to Messrs. Bailey a tacit undertaking was given that there would be no change until the dockyard was ready to be used as a commercial undertaking? As these changes are taking place, am I to understand that that undertaking is being broken by the Minister?

There are a number of Questions later on the Order Paper about this issue. Perhaps I could leave it until we come to them.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what compensation is paid to men discharged from Her Majesty's Dockyard, Malta.

Very few, if any, established staff will be discharged. We have arranged greatly improved rates of gratuity for unestablished staff. A man with 15 years service will get 25 weeks pay, a man with 25 years service will get 85 weeks pay. I will, with permission, he saying that the only people discharged circulate the details in the OFFICIAL in future will be unestablished staff? REPORT.

The hon. Gentleman says that few people will be discharged. Is

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the arrangements under which Admiralty vessels are sent to Bailey's, Malta, for repair in the dockyard have been stopped.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why certain Admiralty work included in a programme covering the period to June, 1963, and notified to Bailey (Malta) Limited on 14th December, 1962, has been withdrawn at short notice and without any reason having been given to Bailey (Malta) Limited.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what orders have been withdrawn for refitting and slipping naval vessels at the Malta dockyard of Bailey (Malta) Limited.

No existing contracts have been cancelled. This in-

Mainly, yes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, by taking the action which he has taken of seeking to strangle the source of supply of work into Bailey's dockyard in Malta, he has struck a very severe blow against the continuity of employment there which has been kept by the successor firm, Bailey (Malta) Ltd., at between 5,000 and 6,000 men ever since it took it over four years ago when the Admiralty felt that it was unable to continue to operate it?

I concede some of what my hon. Friend says in his supplementary question, but, to put it in perspective, Bailey's has undertaken in recent years over£3 million worth of naval work each year. In this instance, the interruption concerns only one or two small ships, so that the difference to the naval repair load will not be marked.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the Colonial Office is so intent on pursuing this undignified and spiteful campaign with Bailey (Malta) Ltd. that the welfare of the people of Malta is now entirely a secondary consideration with it? Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary whether the normal working arrangements between the Admiralty and Bailey (Malta) Ltd. can be resumed forthwith?

I cannot accept the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question. My right hon. Friend certainly puts first and foremost the welfare of the people of Malta. I will certainly draw his attention to the second part of the supplementary question.

Without wishing to make any comment about Messrs. Bailey, may I ask whether the Admiralty would rot agree that it owes an extraordinary debt of gratitude to the people of Malta for their stand during the last war? Does he not recall President Eisenhower saying that their resistance had meant that the war had ended three months earlier than it would otherwise have done? In view of that debt to the Maltese people, will the Civil Lord take into account the unemployment which will be caused among those people, and suggest to his colleagues that there should be the alternative of a trading estate upon that island and of the use of that manificent frontage, now exclusively used by the military, for the development of tourism? Malta could become a new Nice if that were done.

I agree that not only the Admiralty but the nation owes a debt to the island for its contribution in the last war. On the second part of that supplementary, I will certainly report the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint to my right hon. Friend. Perhaps the House will await the statement in a few days.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very deep concern on both sides of the House at the certain consequences of social and economic disturbances in the life of Malta by the cancellation of these contracts? Is he further aware that we find it difficult to understand why the cancellation should have taken place in advance of any longterm decision on the future of the base? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is true, as has been reported, that the Government are encouraging the Government of Malta to nationalise these facilities, and if so, what financial assistance do they propose to give the Maltese Government in such a case?

I must underline the point that I made, that this is not a cancellation. It is an interruption and affects only a very small part—one or two small ships—of the total naval load. On the second point, I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps he will await the statement.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the increases in the ordinary Armed Forces widows' pensions, on 1st January, 1963, for the over-60 widow of a captain, Royal Navy, a chief petty officer and an able seaman, pensioned under the 1950 code, where the husband gave full-time service since 31st August, 1950, bereavement occurred after 4th November, 1958, and rates drawn are maximum rates.

If the widow is under the age of 70 the increases are£47 1s. 0d.,£9 3s. 0d. and£4 16s. 0d. a year respectively. If the widow is aged 70 or more the respective increases are£67 ls. Od.,£28 1s. 0d. and£14 11s. 0d. a year.

When will the Service Ministers and the Minister of Defence produce a worth-while pension scheme for the widows of other ranks and give them more pennies, before giving large increases to senior officers' widows?

I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the schemes of 1959 and 1962 gave the same percentage increase to widows of officers and of ratings. We are looking at this matter with sympathy.

In spite of the recent increase in Service pensions for widows, is not my hon. Friend aware that they are still worse off than they were in 1952, taking into account the increased cost of living? Would it not be a good thing to make an adjustment for these old people? It would cost only about£300.000 a year to rectify this serious situation.

We all sympathise with these widows, but it is not a matter which could be done unilaterally. I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it.

asked the Civil Lard of the Admiralty if he will state the increases in the ordinary Armed Forces pensions, on 1st January, 1963, for an over-60 captain, Royal Navy, a chief petty officer and an able seaman, pensioned under the 1950 code, where the rates drawn are maximum rates.

If under 70 years of age the captain would receive an increase of£141 2s. 0d. a year; the C.P.O.£27 7s. 0d. a year; and the A.B.£100—I am sorry,£10 4s. 0d. a year.

I am glad the Civil Lord corrected the figure of£100 to£10 in his Answer.

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question about the 1919 pension. I think he has selected the case of an able seaman with 22 years' service. Owing to the ambition of young men in the Navy and the chances of promotion, very few seamen—I think less than 2 per cent.—who serve 22 years finish their service in that same category.

Does not the Civil Lord think that the figures that he has given in reply to this and the preceding Question indicate that this method of increasing pensions by the same percentage throughout is quite unfair to the people with a smaller pension?

I think we have made improvements in the Pensions (Increase) Acts. The earlier Acts in 1944, 1947 and 1952 were designed to relieve hardship in its absolute sense. The 1959 and 1962 Acts were aimed at dealing with the relative hardship suffered, and this situation has improved considerably.

asked the Civil Lord Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made in the design studies of the next generation of aircraft carriers; and whether a decision has yet been made to build them.

Design of the replacement carrier is going ahead in accordance with the time table. No decision has yet been taken to order the ship.

Can the Civil Lord say whether this programme will be affected by the Polaris programme? Secondly, in view of the possibility of using vertical take-off aircraft on these carriers, are any trials being carried out at present in conection with the use of these aircraft on aircraft carriers?

It is a little too early to say, but I hope that the design staff would not be "robbed" or transferred from the aircraft carrier programme to the Polaris programme. However, as I have said, it is too early to say. On the second point, it is true that we are extremely interested in the 1127 aircraft. It was due to undertake deck landing trials in the last two days. I only hope that the weather will co-operate more closely in future so that we can get on with these trials.

Can my hon. Friend say whether he is interested also in the 1154, the supersonic version?

Yes, we certainly are, and not only in its basic form but the naval version.

Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the aircraft carrier programme may be cut because of the Polaris agreement?

I said that I would not like to guarantee at this stage that it would not be cut. I said that we hope to recruit extra design staff to undertake the Polaris programme. It might be necessary to make some small correction.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men were serving in the Royal Navy at the beginning of 1939; how many of them were admirals; and what the corresponding figures are today.

The total male strength at 31st March, 1939, was 122.500 including 84 admirals; at 31st March this year total male strength expected to be 94,000 including 75 admirals.

Do not these figures in all their stark simplicity indicate a somewhat top-heavy and unseaworthy superstructure which is calculated to encourage our enemies and dishearten our friends?

I do not think it does. Since before the war we have got international defence organisations which require more admirals and more staff. We have also an enormous expansion of air power. So the two figures are not strictly comparable. I am glad that the hon. Member has now dropped the line he has peddled for some time, that we have more admirals than ships. This is obviously totally untrue on the figures I have given, Captain Litchfield: Do the numbers of admirals include non-executive officers or are they limited to the seamen branch?

No. They do, of course, include non-executive officers. That is another reason why the two figures are not strictly comparable.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the ratio of admirals to ships at the moment?

if the right hon. Gentleman will study the Explanatory Statement he will find that there are 248 ships and these include ships at trials and for training, and support ships, and he can no doubt do the sum more quickly than I.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty by what number the personnel of the Royal Navy, both Service and civilian, will be increased in view of the new defence policy.

I cannot yet give my hon. Friend any firm estimate of the increases we shall need.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he will look into this in the very near future, in view of the reply given previously that we have a 3 per cent. shortage of recruits already? Because of the possibility that such submarines will each need two crews of 100 each, and we are short of technicians, surely this is a very pressing problem?

Yes, we are looking into all these problems. The whole Polaris project raises an immense number of questions and it will require time for them to be resolved.

May we have the assurance that whatever shortage exists in the various arms of the naval Service there is not likely to be any shortage of admirals for many years ahead?

I am sure that there are many people in the Royal Navy well worthy of being promoted to admiral.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what consideration has been given by the naval staff to the practicability of mounting Polaris missiles on surface warships.

This has been considered but surface ships would not have the same invulnerability. Additional development would be needed to overcome problems which do not occur with the proved Polaris system.

If there should be any delay in the construction of our nuclear submarines, or if the deterrent gap should prove to be as serious as some Opposition spokesmen have indicated, will my hon. Friend look at this again? As we have five missile surface ships on order at the moment, would it not be fairly easy to adapt them so that they can take these very powerful missiles?

We will bear this point in mind. I think it is better to put all our resources behind the production efforts for these new nuclear submarines and not divert them to try to solve the problems which arise if we look to surface ships—problems which do not arise in the other case.

Is there not something to be said for this? Would not Polaris missiles in the surface ships probably be more economically useless than putting them into submarines?

There may be something to be said for it in the hon. and learned Member's mind, but I think that most strategists would not agree with him.

Is it not a fact that a ship equipped to fire Polaris missiles is about one-thirtieth of the cost of a Polaris submarine? Is it not, therefore, a consideration whether we should not have 30 of these ships, and would that not be more efficient than having all our eggs in one Polaris basket?

I would suggest that a surface ship is many more than 30 times as vulnerable as the Polaris submarine. We are trying to construct a deterrent which will last us right away through the 'seventies. It is surely better to have an ultimate deterrent rather than a temporary stop-gap.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider drawing up a 10-year programme of work for the Royal Naval Dockyards in view of the new defence policy.

It is already our practice to prepare a long-term assessment of future work in the Royal Dockyards; this takes account of Fleet plans as known at the time and is reviewed annually.

Will my hon. Friend consider having a 10-year programme in future, so that we can have really balanced working in naval dockyards, and may I ask him to ensure that in his efforts to keep employment in other dockyards in the country and to increase employment there he will not create unemployment in the naval dockyard at Devonport?

The decision to make a long-term forecast of the dockyard load was taken last year and we are doing it in more detailed form than ever before. I agree that it is very important indeed. On the second issue, we are well aware of the problems of the dockyards and we are watching the load most carefully.

What sort of work has gone into modernisation of naval dockyards in recent years and what sort of sum has been spent?

On home dockyards alone in the last 10 years we have invested more than£34 million in new buildings, new machinery and new techniques. This is an earnest of our confidence in the future of the Royal Naval Dockyard.

In view of the Polaris decision, what additional staff and what changes of personnel have been decided for our naval dockyards?

Again, that is another aspect which we are examining. It will take a long time before it is resolved.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what are the expected completion dates for H.M.S. "Fearless" and H.M.S. "Intrepid".

My noble Friend said on 11th July last that these two assault ships, H.M.S. "Fearless" and "Intrepid", would join the Fleet in about three years' time—that is, in 1965. There is no reason to alter that forecast.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this time cannot be reduced? Does it compare reasonably with that of comparable foreign yards?

The assault ship is unique in this country and the U.S.A. So far as I know—I have not got comparable figures—and my hon. Friend will know, they work the shift system more intensely in the United States than we do in this country.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many more juveniles in his Department are now attending day-release classes as a result of his advice to heath of Departments last November to encourage young people to attend these classes.

It is too early to appreciate the effect of the circular which was issued.

That is very discouraging. Is the Civil Lord aware that the situation with regard to the number of 16 to 18-year-olds of the industrial non-apprentice grade in the Admiralty attending day-release classes was the worst in the Civil Service and probably below the figures for the engineering industry as a whole? Surely this is a bit of a scandal and the Civil Lord ought to take very strong steps to see that his Department's figures are brought up to the general level of the Civil Service.

We put out an Admiralty Fleet Order on 4th January, and it is early for us to mark the increase since then. The Order says:

"Their Lordships wish every encouragement to be given to these yowls people to take advantage of the available facilities."

But the hon. Gentleman said on 9th November that he was going to take this action. Surely it does not take from 9th November to January to issue an Order of that description?

It is a detailed point. We were trying to resolve a difficulty. We wanted to be able to pay for the books that these young men would use in the extension course. We have now agreed this with the Treasury. It was worth while waiting because these young men will get extra help as a result.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make it a condition of service for all juveniles aged 15 to 18 years that they will attend day-release classes.

We are changing our regulations to make it a condition of service that non-industrials under 16 should attend day-release classes where these are available. As regards non-industrials 16–18 there are many difficulties, and we can do no more than give every encouragement to these juveniles to attend suitable classes.

This is worse and worse. It is the typical Admiralty snobbish attitude. It means that the under-l6-yearolds of the Admiralty are worse off than those in other Departments. The hon. Gentleman should take steps to bring them up to the position of the others. Why is it that the Home Office and the Prison Commission make day release compulsory up to 18 and the Admiralty does not?

When I referred to difficulties, I was referring to difficulties not within the Admiralty but which local authorities have in providing suitable classes. If they can be overcome, we will strongly encourage our boys to attend.

asked the Secretary of State for War what was the number of Army personnel of all ranks who applied for discharge during 1962; how many discharges were granted; and what were the main grounds far refusal.

Records are not kept of the total number of applications submitted by soldiers for discharge.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures are not only disturbing but disappointing? In view of the publicity given to this problem during the nomination period for recent by-elections, will he undertake to look into them more closely and stress that money in itself is not the means of getting out of the Army?

I do not altogether agree with the hon. Gentleman that these figures are disappointing. They represent an improvement on last year in both trained soldiers and recruits. The question of Parliamentary candidates is rather different; the hon. Gentleman will know from my right hon. Friend's statement how that is now being handled.

asked the Secretary of State for War haw much pension, including all increases, is received by a 55-year-old widow of a major who retired after maximum service in 1958 and died on 3rd November, 1958: and how much would it be if her husband had retired this year and died today.

:£181 a year and£310 a year respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although in the second case a major's widow would receive very much the same pension as that of a senior executive officer in the Civil Service, in the first case a Civil Service widow would receive some£85 more? Why did my right hon. Friend say in his speech on 20th December that there was no basis on which Service widows who lost their husbands before 3rd November, 1958, could be distinguished from any other category of public service pensioner, and when there is already that very considerable difference, why did he say that their pensions could not be reassessed unless those of all other Service pensioners were reassessed as well?

If I understood my hon. Friend's supplementary question aright, I do not think I can altogether accept it. It is misleading to make comparisons between one Service and another which are supposedly based on comparable ranks. I think that my right hon. Friend was carrect—I believe the House accepted it—when he said that if it is a question of altering the basis of assessment we must do this overall—for one Service as well as for another.

Now that we are in a time when we are looking to expand spending power, ought we not to accept the principle that the same service deserves the same pension, and that it is dishonourable for a Government to pay pensions in bad money when they have been responsible for making that money bad?

We debated this subject, and the hon. and learned Gentleman made this point to my right hon. Friend and was answered. I do not think there is any change in the situation which warrants my going beyond what was then said.

In any case, is it not high time that the arbitrary distinction between widows of former members of the Armed Services who died before 3rd November. 1958, and others was abolished?

That is exactly the point. I have nothing to add to what has been said on former occasions.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend fully understood the meaning of my question. What I was trying to make clear was that at the present time the Civil Service widow and the Service widow get the same amount of pension approximately, but before 1958 there was this very considerable difference. Surely there would be no need for reassessment to bring one up to the level of the other?

The difficulty about the Government's position is that we cannot rewrite history in this matter. When a basis has been laid down in the past, it cannot now be altered.

Why not?

asked the Secretary of State for War how much retired pay and terminal grant is received by a retired major who has today reached the age of 60 and was retired at 45; what is the normal compulsory age of retirement; and how much retired pay and terminal grant a major receive, who retires today after maximum service.

A major who retired at 45 and is now 60 gets£689 a year retired pay with no terminal grant. The normal compulsory age of retirement for a major is 55.

Is my hon. Friend aware that today the major and the senior executive officer in the Civil Service receive approximately the same amount of pension and the same terminal grant? On the other hand, is he aware that the retired major who is 60 today receives a pension some 40 per cent. less than that of a senior executive officer in the Civil Service of similar age and no terminal grant whatsoever? Does not he recall my right hon. Friend saying that it would be wrong to deal with Service men differently from other public service pensioners? But is that not what is happening?

I am afraid that we cannot give to those who have already retired the right of benefit from the improved conditions of service that Parliament has decided should apply to their successors.

Why not?

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the negotiations with regard to redundancy amongst civilian employees, both established and unestablished, of the Army in Singapore; and if he has had any proposals for reference of disputed points to arbitration.

The Army authorities told the Singapore Army Civil Service Union in May, 1961, that redeployment of the Army would make many locally engaged civilians redundant. The discharges began last month and will be completed by March, 1964. The redundancies amount to about 1,600 posts.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that at least one of the functions of our base in Singapore is to provide good will and support for the Government there. Do these redeployments involve downgrading and less pay for a number of established civil servants as well as the discharge of a number of unestablished civil servants? Is that a very wise thing to do? Is this not a situation which creates a tremendous amount of bad will? If there is a request for arbitration, in these circumstances, is it not desirable to comply with it?

We follow the practice of local good employers. I am satisfied, having recently reviewed our arrangements, that they are well in line with what local good employers do. Established employees are being dealt with under the provisions of the United Kingdom Superannuation Act. I am satisfied that we are giving generous treatment, and in view of what we are doing I cannot agree with arbitration.

If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied, why should not an arbitrator be satisfied? If he feels that his case is such a good one, why should he fear arbitration?

It is not a question of fearing arbitration. There is no cause for arbitration in this case. I am absolutely satisfied, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member would be if he looked into the terms we give, that we are doing everything in line with local good employment.

Surely the whole point of arbitration is to use it when one side is not satisfied.

I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman's point. Some people are professing themselves to be dissatisfied by particular sections of the gratuities and arrangements we are making. We have been doing this over a long period, and have just reviewed our practice and brought it into line with the practice of local good employers. I can see no reason for departing from established custom and having arbitration.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on recruitment policy for the Army.

Recruitment policy for the Army continues to be the creation of a balanced all Regular force capable of carrying out our national commitments.

At what point do married men cease to be suitable for carrying out overseas commitments? At what point does the Brigade of Gurkhas cease to be suitable? At what point do various educational standards suddenly become necessary? Surely the right hon. Gentleman's statement is not very satisfactory in view of what is happening?

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not find it satisfactory. Our aim is to produce a balanced and well-trained, highly mobile army of the highest calibre. We have reached the stage in recruitment when we can take certain steps to raise our general standards. I believe that those steps will be applauded not only in the Army but by hon. Members on both sides of the House when the Army becomes complete and up to establishment, for we shall then have the best men available. We are recruiting them in the best possible way now and I am convinced that this policy is the right one.

When may we expect my right hon. Friend's statement about the future recruitment of the Gurkhas? Does he realise that, because of the spate of rumours in the Press over the last few days, there is acute anxiety on this matter in this House, in Nepal and in the Brigade of Gurkhas?

I appreciate what my right hon. and gallant Friend says, and I know how this House feels about the Brigade of Gurkhas. But I am not yet in a position to say anything finally about it. I hope to be able to make an announcement within the next few weeks. Meanwhile, I hope that people will not take too literally what they read in the newspapers, for which I am not responsible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he proposes to reduce the Gurkha force by one-third? Does not he agree that one reason why it is necessary to raise standards in the Army is that some of the services have a wastage of approximately 40 per cent?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the steps we are taking in order to bring the all-Regular Army into the right focus. No decision about the future of the Gurkhas has been taken.

My right hon. Friend has referred to rumours in the Press about a reduction. Is it not the case that the best way that the Government could get rid of them would be to announce that there is not going to be a reduction?

Answer.

I will answer. If I were to take precipitate action—

It has taken one year already.

The House cannot grumble about the Gurkhas if no decision has been taken. This is an extremely difficult matter with the widest possible repercussions, and until the Government are satisfied and ready to take action I cannot do anything just because the papers print rumours.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we would be delighted to know what he was doing, but we should like to be in a position to judge. When will he, by answering our questions, provide us with the opportunity to judge?

The hon. and learned Member's question to me referred to announcements I recently made about alterations in the requirements for recruits. He now knows what those changes are. First, we shall require two written references instead of one which could be oral. Secondly, by and large we are not going to take married people, except in exceptional circumstances, because too many were being taken on. Thirdly, we are not going to take people who are actually on probation. These are the only new changes in our policy, and I believe them to be right.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the atomic tactical weapons of British manufacture now in use in the British Army.

There are none, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister of that reply, because when I asked this Question of the Prime Minister be said that he would not weary the House by giving a list? The Prime Minister also went on to state that the answer had already been given by the Minister of Defence. Can we now take it that (a) the Prime Minister did not know and that (b) the Minister of Defence knew but would not say?

Certainly not. I cannot accept any of that. The situation was that the Minister of Defence was talking about our deterrent forces and not about the Army tactical nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister said that he did not want to weary the House by going into details on those weapons.

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

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the present role of the 51st Infantry Brigade; and what steps he has taken to provide an effective reserve in the United Kingdom in the event of their departure to the Far East.

51 Infantry Brigade is part of the Strategic Reserve. If it were sent to the Far East there would still normally be two brigade groups and some unbrigaded units left in this country.

What steps have been taken in recent weeks to increase the strength of units in the brigade. Would it not be reasonable to assume that if the brigade went to the Far East it would be away for a considerable time? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted our N.A.T.O. allies about this? Are they satisfied with the present arrangements?

There is no need to consult them, because it is well known that our Strategic Reserve has a joint responsibility, to B.A.O.R. and on a world-wide basis. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's query about how long the brigade might be away if it were sent to the Far East. That is a hypothetical question. I am satisfied that the strength of the units in the Strategic Reserve is such that it is capable in all respects of carrying out its obligations.

In view of the importance of keeping up the strength of the Strategic Reserve, will the right hon. Gentleman deny the rumour that recruiting for the British Army is to be kept unofficially below 175,000?

No Sir. I hope that my hon. Friend will not ask me to deny every rumour in the newspapers. I hope that I satisfy him by saying that our policy is proceeding steadily in building up recruitment on the lines I have announced.

Am I right in saying that one of the two brigades in the Strategic Reserve is the Parachute Brigade? If so, can he say how many battalions of that brigade are in this country?

It is wrong to say that one of the two brigades is the Parachute Brigade. One is the 19th Brigade and the other the 51st. The Parachute Brigade is over and above that strength.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far the 51st Brigade was pledged to N.A.T.O. as part of our commitment in Europe?

As is known by our N.A.T.O. allies, the 51st Brigade is primarily concerned with helping B.A.O.R., but it also has a world-wide connotation. It has a double stance. It can do either lob. If it is doing something in the Far East, there is still the 19th Brigade. It is right to have a flexible Strategic Reserve which is not pinned down to one particular job on hand.