asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the results of the narcotic experiments on wood pigeons in the Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire areas last winter; and what progress has been made on further research.

The experiments in the narcotising of wood pigeons last winter included two in Huntingdonshire but none in Bedfordshire. Because of adverse weather, none of the experiments could be continued long enough for a proper assessment of the effectiveness of this means of control or of the degree of risk to wild life and to game birds. The experiments have been discontinued during the summer months, as the birds will not take the narcotised bait then, but further experiments are contemplated for the winter of 1963–64.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but does he realise that damage from this pest was probably heavier in Bedfordshire than in any other part of the country during last winter and that it resulted in the ruin of more than one grower? Will he please press on energetically with these experiments, and will he consider publishing the results so that we may judge whether they are successful or not?

I agree with my hon Friend in saying that the damage which wood pigeons do to crops is extensive, and we shall continue with our experiments in the future. The details of these trials will be published in Agriculture, a publication of the Ministry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that it is not possible for cases of cruelty to calves being reared by intensive methods for veal to be brought before the courts when they are confined in enclosed houses on private property and access can always be denied; and what steps he will take to ensure that adequate inspection of the methods employed can be carried out.

I cannot accept that it is not possible to bring before the courts any case of cruelty that may arise in such circumstances. The powers of the police under Section 12 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, enable them to act against any person whom they have reason to believe is guilty of such an offence. I would not feel justified in seeking powers of inspection in cases where there are no grounds for believing there is an offence.

How is it possible for the police to enter upon private property to carry out an inspection without first obtaining a warrant so to do? How can the police bring an action if they have not the opportunity to go into these broiler houses at any time in order to ensure that they are properly and reasonably conducted along the lines that most humane people would require?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that questions about the police and their powers are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I am advised that if the police are satisfied that they have evidence that what is taking place on private premises amounts to a felony or a breach of the Act, they can exercise the right of entry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer is totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable, since it merely exposes that it is, in fact, impossible to obtain any information in regard to these matters? If there is nothing to hide, why cannot my right hon. Friend make reasonable regulations to ensure that these animals are given proper periods of daylight and reasonable freedom of movement and that they receive a diet which is not deliberately designed to induce anaemia?

We have given advice to farmers that satisfactory results can be obtained by allowing calves reasonable freedom of movement in ordinary accommodation and in small groups, keeping them not in darkness but in a subdued light.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he had with the British forestry industry, before going to Geneva, about proposed changes in the levels of duties on imports of timber which compete with the home product.

None, Sir; but before the G.A.T.T. meeting in Geneva, discussions took place between representatives of the Forestry Commission, the Board of Trade, the Forestry Committee of Great Britain and the Federated Home Timber Associations, at which the views of the forestry industry were taken into account.

I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that there was adequate consultation between the proper interests and the Ministries concerned. Will he bear in mind that the problem of standing hard woods can be particularly affected by steps of this sort and that it is not sufficient just to consult the Forestry Commission on matters of this sort simply because the other half of the industry happens to own about 90 per cent. of the matured timber? Although relations between both the private side and the State side of the forestry industry are of the highest order, will my right hon. Friend continue to ensure that private interests have then-say when matters of this sort are considered?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the need for this. As I said in my Answer, both the Forestry Committee of Great Britain and the Federated Home Timber Associations, with private interests, were represented at these meetings.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the present regulations governing the landing of fish in British ports do not place British fishermen under a disadvantage compared with their competitors in certain Scandinavian countries; and if he will make a statement.

I am not aware that British fishermen are at any disadvantage against foreign fishermen as regards the landing of their fish in British ports. If my hon. Friend has in mind the effect on British fishermen of landing regulations operated in other countries, this is among the matters we would expect to be discussed at the Fisheries Conference later this year to which we have invited the Western European countries.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that there has been feeling among inshore fishermen, particularly in my constituency, about the fact that, while they have been free to land their catches in Norway, they have not received the same welcome in Sweden or Denmark? As these nations have freedom to land in our ports, cannot we ensure that our own fishermen are able to land in theirs if they wish to do so?

Access to markets, not only to our market but also to other European markets, will obviously be one of the major matters to be discussed at the forthcoming Fisheries Conference which has been announced.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why his Department has recently published the booklet, entitled Chemicals for the Gardener, which contains, in a list of chemicals that can be safely used by gardeners and others without damage to wild life, such chemicals as Aldrin, Dieldrin, DDT and BHC, which are known to be persistently poisonous to almost all animals and birds.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what considerations governed the selection of garden chemicals approved as safe in the booklet, Chemicals for the Gardener.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will withdraw from circulation the book let, published by his Department, entitled Chemicals for the Gardener, in view of the unsubstantiated information contained therein.

This booklet was published to help gardeners choose the right chemical and use it in the correct way. Of the listed chemicals, all the chlorinated hydro-carbons have been considered by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances and the guidance contained in the booklet takes account of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee for their safe use.

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his Answer. Will he undertake to ensure that in future there is a thorough investigation into all of these new insecticides before they are introduced, because there is very great concern in this country about the loss of wild life as a result of the introduction of chemicals which might do damage and even cause death and suffering to animals?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. His anxiety about the possible effects on wild life through the use of chemicals is widely felt, not least by myself. We have this Advisory Committee which covers all interests and which has a great deal of knowledge. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that all chemicals will be referred to this body, and we shall ask it to look at any new evidence which there is.

Nevertheless, is it not very serious that this list has been published, and is there not great public concern about the dangers of farm and garden chemicals? Many people are led to think that if they follow this list they will be safe and that there will be no persistent danger to birds and animals. Will not this list as published by the Ministry do more harm than good in this serious situation?

I could not accept that. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. These chemicals to which she refers—all the chlorinated hydro-carbons and persistent chemicals—have all been examined by the Advisory Committee. As a result of the advice which it gave to me, we had a meeting with all the interests concerned, and the decision which was taken was that these chemicals should not be used as seed dressing during the spring and should be used only in certain circumstances during the autumn. This has been followed and the effect has been a very appreciable diminution in the number of birds found dead and sent to the laboratories for autopsy. This was the only recommendation concerning these particular chemicals. They have been used for things other than seed dressing, and they are still so used.

As my right hon. Friend has agreed that there are some grounds for reappraisal of the contents of this booklet, will be confirm that it will be withdrawn from circulation to prevent further damage from being done?

Certainly not. I am not confirming anything. What I am saying is that certain societies have said that, in their view, there is evidence that birds have been killed through having had contact with or having eaten chemicals other than those used for seed dressings and that this matter should be examined by the Advisory Committee, which I must look to. All that this published booklet does is to include these chemicals. It does not say that they should be used as seed dressings and it follows the advice given to me by the Advisory Committee. I do not think that there is anything unusual in referring this question back to the Advisory Committee. We must remain constantly vigilant, and no doubt if fresh evidence comes to light it will be noted.

Is it not the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that these chemicals are harmless? All that we have up to now is evidence that over a short period they have not caused a great deal of damage. Is it not also the case that in another place the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on Monday that the Advisory Committee had not approved this booklet in the form in which it has appeared? In those circumstances, should not the booklet be withdrawn?

No, Sir. What the Parliamentary Secretary said was that the booklet itself was not sent to the Advisory Committee. There was no need to do that. All that the Advisory Committee has done has been to look at the chemicals in the booklet, particularly the hydro-carbons. It has not examined all the chemicals. For instance, some of the older ones which have been in use longer have not yet been through the Advisory Committee, but all the persistent and chlorinated hydrocarbons have been examined.

Very unsatisfactory.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration is given to the effects on wild life before farm and garden chemicals are approved for use under the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme.

Before a product containing a new chemical can be added to the list of approved products under the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme, the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances must issue recommendations for its safe use. Under this scheme the Committee requires manufacturers to provide experimental data on the effect of the product on wild life, and must be satisfied with this and other information on wild life hazards before giving clearance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the booklet Chemicals for the Gardener, the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Organisation recommends the use of Aldrin, Dieldrin and other poisons which are known to be toxically effective on animals and wild birds?

When the Organisation examined the matter, its recommendation was that these chemicals should not be used as seed dressings during the spring or during the autumn, except in certain circumstances. The booklet does not recommend their use as seed dressings.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, both to this and to earlier Questions, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

The hon. Lady has to confine her notice to this Question; but it will work.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost involved in the Order dated 20th May, 1963, authorising the landing at London Airport of three oryx from Kenya; and when it will be possible to simplify the procedure involved in such matters.

The cost of preparing and publishing the Order was about £15 10s. Only two Orders have been made since 1950 to authorise the transhipment of animals coming from a foreign country. Such movements are allowed only very exceptionally and I do not consider that any change in the arrangements is necessary.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all this is quite unnecessary? The Order comes here and is shoved into a hole somewhere in the Library. No one ever looks at these Orders or cares about them, except perhaps myself when I occasionally look at them to see what money is being wasted. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman dispense with this Order altogether and rely on the rest of the procedure which enables these animals to be examined before and when they arrive here? Is it not sheer nonsense to keep on this bit of red tape?

I cannot accept that. It is very important for the health of animals that these Orders should be in force. They give a great measure of protection to animal health in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what decision he has made about the proposed increase in the White Fish Authority's levy.

I will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is widespread feeling in the industry that the work of the Authority in research and advertisement is duplicating the work of other sections of the industry, that administrative expenses are very high and that there is considerable resistance to the increase in the levy?

Yes, but there is also considerable support for the existence of the White Fish Authority and a realisation that it must have funds to keep itself going and that a lot of the research which is done is of the highest value. I am balancing the many representations which I have received, and I hope to make an announcement in the near future.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will present a White Paper giving details as to how he will operate the new system of control of food imports combined with the standard quantity concept for home production which he announced on 22nd May, 1963.

The consultations on detailed arrangements to which I referred on 22nd May are proceeding and I will inform the House as soon as I am able to amplify what I said then.

How will the Minister inform the House? Will it be by a White Paper? Will we be able to judge which organisations have been consulted in the working out of the details of the Minister's policy? Can we have some further information now?

So many organisations have been consulted that I would not like to name them off the cuff, but if the hon. Member will put down a Question I can certainly answer it. It is too early yet to say what form any further statement should take. There is to be the first meeting in the coming week of the cereals group of G.A.T.T. in Geneva. This is our first formal contact in a large body with our overseas suppliers. I will, however, keep the House informed as we go along.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are a great many farmers whose conception of "standard quantity" is that this is a restrictive measure which imposes a standard quantity upon individual farms, when, in fact, it does nothing of the kind but is a stimulus to greater competitive production by efficient producers? Will my right hon. Friend make this clear?

Yes, I certainly will. Indeed, I will make clear that we do not have it in mind in any way to relate the standard quantity to terms of a quota per farm for cereals or fat stock. Looking at the list of other commodities on which there are already standard quantities, I do not believe that anybody need have cause to think that that is likely to happen.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the composition of the committee to investigate agricultural smallholdings policy.

I am not yet in a position to announce the members of the Committee, but I will do so as soon as possible.

I hope that when the Minister announces his decision there will be a statement to the effect that the Committee will at least include a representative of the trade unions concerned. After all, this is a matter which affects them.

I appreciate fully the concern of the National Union of Agricultural Workers with statutory smallholdings, and I am confident that Professor Wise and his Committee will want to hear any evidence which the union may care to put forward. My aim, however, is to set up a Committee which will be accepted on all sides as being fully independent. For that reason, I am inviting members with wide experience, including a senior official of a national trade union. In the circumstances, it would be wrong to invite, as it were, representational members to serve on the Committee.

Is the Minister aware that many of us are interested in this matter and that the Committee can make a constructive contribution towards smallholdings policy? Will he, therefore, urge that the work be undertaken as soon as possible?

Yes, Sir. I announced shortly before the Whit sun Recess that we had decided to set up the Committee and that Professor Wise would chair it. I am now busy inviting others to serve on it, and as soon as their names can be given I will inform the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the decision of Her Majesty's Government to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Transaction in Seeds, and of the measure of agreement which exists within the industry on the proposals, he will introduce this Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

The Government realise the importance of legislation on this subject and intend to introduce a Bill as soon as Parliamentary time permits. But I cannot yet say whether it will be possible to find a place for it in the legislature programme for next Session.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the reasons why so many of the modern varieties of seeds and plants that are used in this country are imported from abroad is the protection which is given to breeders in other countries? Is it not urgent, therefore, that our breeders should be given the opportunity of competing with them on fair terms by having the same sort of protection in this country?

I cannot dissent from what my hon. Friend says. There is, of course, a wide measure of agreement for legislation among all concerned. I would not expect it to be controversial in principle. All I am saying at the moment is that we would like to proceed with it but that it is a question of finding Parliamentary time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now considered the report submitted to the Covent Garden Market Authority on the re-location of Covent Garden Market; and if he will make a statement.

The report was commissioned by the Covent Garden Market Authority and is addressed to them. They are at present consulting the interests affected. On this basis they will form their own view and will then make recommendations to me. These I await.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that of all the sites examined the last site that is likely to be chosen for the redevelopment of the Market is the Covent Garden Market site itself, and that in order to site it anywhere else the Act would have to be amended? Would it not save time if my right hon. Friend were to introduce amending legislation now?

The House would find considerable difficulty in introducing amending legislation to put the Market elsewhere without specifying where it is to be put. It would be more advisable to await the decision of the Authority which was set up by this House to decide upon the rebuilding of Covent Garden, and then for the Government to make up their mind. If the Market is to be put outside Covent Garden—and I agree with my hon. Friend that the most likely solution appears to be that it should be outside that area—this could be arranged through a Private Bill emanating from the Authority itself.

Does not my right hon. Friend remember the Amendment which I sought to introduce, which would have given the Authority the right to select alternative sites? This would be a quite simple Measure to introduce.

I remember my hon. Friend's Amendment, which would enable the Authority to rebuild the Market on any approved site outside the Covent Garden area. My hon. Friend maintained that the Authority should be left free to decide where to develop the Market. It was largely because of recommendations by my hon. Friend and others, both here and in another place, that during the passage of the Bill the Government made it clear that if the Authority decided that it wanted to go outside the Covent Garden area we would not stand in its way in proceeding by a Private Bill. It would not, however, have been acceptable to the House, nor do I think that it would be acceptable today, to pass legislation giving the Authority carte blanche about where the site should be before the location of the site is decided.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sum was paid out to retail distributors arising from the recent decision of the Sugar Board.

None, Sir. The distribution payments are made by the Sugar Board to the refiners at the point where raw sugar passes out of bond into the refineries. The consequential reduction in the price of refined sugar is passed on by the refiners to the retail distributors and other customers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely convinced that the interests of the housewife and the consumer were fully protected by this machinery? Will he examine it with a view to tightening it up?

I believe that the measures we put into operation just before the Whitsun Recess have enabled the consumers and the housewives to have the fullest advantage from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This has always been and remains the Government's intention.

Does not the right hon. Member agree that these steps should have been taken very much earlier so that the housewife was not held to ransom not only by high prices but by conditions of sale? In some shops house wives were told that they could not have sugar without buying another commodity as well.

I cannot accept that it would have been reasonable to have done this sooner. The retail price began to rise early in May at a time when the world price was rising exceedingly steeply—so steeply that it could not possibly have been forecast. Then the wheels were put into motion and by about the middle of May—or at any rate by the end of May—we had laid these Orders. In fact, our prices were well below world prices in early May. There was a period of only about two or three weeks at the most when prices were higher than we would like to have seen.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent since the Ottawa talks it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to participate in a mixed-manned multilateral fleet commanded by the United States of America, as well as to build submarines armed with Polaris missiles supplied by the United States of America; and what will be the position of the British naval contingent in the mixed-manned fleet when British V-bombers and Polaris submarines are withdrawn from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command and used independently, without United States support or approval, in a supreme national emergency.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. In view of this, the second half of the Question is hypothetical.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday's reply did not cover the question of how the Government propose to reconcile their position as the second mate of a multilateral ship under a German first officer and an American skipper with acting as a nuclear general officer at home in engaging in thermo-nuclear war without the United States?

These are interesting problems, but they are hypothetical, depending on decisions to come.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if we take part in this force it will in no way affect completion of our Polaris submarine programme or our independent nuclear deterrent?

This affects a very wide range of defence costing, but it will not affect the independent nuclear deterrent.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister committed the Government to using their best endeavours to develop a multilateral force in which our Polaris submarines would be integrated, if the Government are not now prepared to participate in the mixed-manned force, what other proposal are they making?

I have made it clear that the Government have fully implemented their part of the arrangement envisaged at Nassau. We have undertaken the development of Polaris submarines which will be subscribed to N.A.T.O. All this is being carried out and is well advanced. At no stage have we committed ourselves to subscribe to a mixed-manned surface ship force. This is a separate problem under consideration at the present time, but no decision has been taken.

Possibly the right hon. Gentleman has been too busy to read the text of the Bahamas Communiqué. If he has read it, he will be aware that the Government have committed themselves in so many words to using their being endeavours to develop a N.A.T.O. multilateral nuclear force. Does he think that the proposal made at Ottawa fulfils fully the Government's commitments in this respect?

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little muddled about the word "multilateral". As used at Nassau it was in the widest sense, including the subscription of national forces to N.A.T.O. This was fully understood, and it is accepted by everyone, including the Americans, that we have not entered into any commitment.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now issue a White Paper on Defence to include the views of the Government on the practicality, or otherwise, of a mixed-manned nuclear force.

No, Sir.

In view of the general dissatisfaction, to put it no higher, which existed in the House at the time of the issue of the Defence White Paper earlier this year, would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are certain gaps in the Government's defence policy which now need to be filled, more particularly on the issue of the mixed-manned nuclear force? Would he not agree that this is a matter of such importance that it merits, first, a White Paper, secondly, a debate, and, thirdly, a decision by the House as to the stupidity of this project?

I happen to have thought that the White Paper to which my hon. Friend refers was one of the best White Papers on defence published by either party in the House of Commons. But as no decision has been reached on this matter, it is hardly a subject for a White Paper at the moment.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in considering the reorganisation of the service departments, he proposes to extend the electronic computer organisation at present used by the Army for pay and other administrative purposes to the other two armed services.

Electronic computers will be brought into use in all three Services, but it may not be economic or advisable to site them all together.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the recent visit of Admiral Claude Ricketts, the United States Vice-Chief of Naval Operations, and indicate what decisions have been reached as a result of this visit.

Discussions with Admiral Ricketts covered both the broad military issues and the more detailed and technical questions to which the proposed force gives rise. They were of considerable value to ourselves and, I think, to the United States.

Bearing in mind that up to the time of the visit the Admiralty was very largely opposed to a multilateral force, was the Admiral's visit so persuasive that it produced a change of mind in the Admiralty?

There is no question of anyone being in favour of or opposed to this idea. It is under consideration.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to certain important criticisms of this scheme made by Field Marshal Montgomery in another place? In view of the Field Marshal's eminence and his knowledge of these matters, and in the light of his criticisms, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider naming the first of these ships H.M.S. "Poppycock"?

I have considered all the arguments which are going on about this force. No decision has been taken. I think that it is a project which deserves serious consideration. I do not think that it is sensible to sneer at ideas put forward by our allies. We may agree or disagree with them, but they always merit serious, proper and full consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of when the Government expect to conclude their consideration and take a decision on this matter?

No, Sir. Nor do I think it right to rush into decisions which would involve, in any event, the expenditure of several hundreds of millions of pounds by Western Europe. These are matters which deserve careful consideration.

asked the Minister of Defence what submissions were made to Her Majesty's Government by the representative of the United States of America who recently visited the United Kingdom on the creation of a mixed-manned nuclear force; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the result of the official visit of Admiral Ricketts.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his recent talks with Admiral Ricketts of the United States Navy.

Discussions with Admiral Ricketts covered both the broad military issues and the more detailed and technical questions to which the proposed force gives rise. They were of considerable value to ourselves and, I think, to the United States.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that to be a most inadequate reply? If it is the intention of the Government to proceed with this fantastic scheme, have they considered what the cost would be and, in particular, how the scheme would become operative? These are not hypothetical questions. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House of what is actually in his mind?

I think that it is an adequate answer. The visit of Admiral Ricketts was of great value. He was able to describe to us the broad military thinking which underlay the American proposals in this matter. I think that it would be wrong for me to enter into further details upon this until we have had time to give full consideration to this as well as to the political issues involved.

Would it not have saved this distinguished officer a journey and this House considerable anxiety if the Government had made up their mind that we must concentrate our limited resources on our own nuclear deterrent force whether this is placed alongside the forces of allies or not? Will the Government now come to a decision and perhaps seize the opportunity of the visit of President Kennedy to make their decision perfectly clear?

It might have saved Admiral Ricketts a journey, but it would have been a discourtesy to an ally and an ill service to the House of Commons not to have informed ourselves fully on these matters.

Is it not now four months since this proposal was first made officially by the American Government to its allies? Are the Government to go on shilly-shallying for ever? On the technical question of the military feasibility of the proposed force, as a result of the discussions with Admiral Ricketts, can the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions which have been widely discussed in the Press and which have seriously disturbed hon. Members on both sides of the House?

The hon. Member has asked a series of questions on only one part of this problem, concerned with the feasibility of this proposal, but there is the question of the requirement as a whole and as to whether it is necessary, apart from its feasibility. On top of that, there is the question of the foreign policy, or political, side. Those things are better dealt with together when the decision is taken.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether this proposal is being put forward by the Americans principally on the ground that this is the best way of preventing a further spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, and, if so, can he then declare that the political considerations are taking precedence over military practicality?

This is undoubtedly, and is well known to be, a factor in the minds of the Americans at present, but it would be quite wrong in question and answer to isolate one factor and pay too much attention to it.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements he envisages for co-ordinating aircraft and missile research and development for the three Services, as part of his proposed reorganisation of the Services.

asked the Minister of Defence what savings in the administrative staffs of the three Services and the Ministry of Defence he anticipates will result when the full arrangements for unification are in operation.

Details of the proposed defence reorganisation will be published in a White Paper next month.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Government have spent over £200 million on aircraft and missiles that have been cancelled before going into service? Is it not, therefore, a matter of top priority that the co-ordination of research and development on aircraft and missiles should be considered?

It is certainly necessary that co-ordination of the aircraft and missiles programmes should be considered. Without accepting in any way the hon. Member's figures, I think he will find it extremely difficult to name any country which has not spent large sums of money on aircraft and missiles which have later been cancelled.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reluctance to accept these figures, since they were included in a written answer from the Ministry of Aviation on Monday?

Not even that will prevent me considering it.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that an announcement is to be made in a White Paper. Is he intending to make that White Paper so expansive that he can indicate in more than a general way how he will unify the Service organisations, so that we can test whether there is to be real integration—which, I gather, is the purpose of the exercise?

I hope so. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has followed this matter very closely, but I ask him to await the White Paper. It will be in reasonable detail and will give him an opportunity of forming an opinion on the points he has very properly in mind.

Is it the intention to submit the White Paper to the House for preliminary discussions, or to obtain a decision by the House? Is it not extremely important that there should be very careful consideration by right hon. and hon. Members before the Government come to a conclusion?

It is always the purpose of White Papers to inform the House of Commons. I have always made it plain that I value the advice of the House in matters of this kind. These will be Government proposals for the reorganisation of defence, but this covers a vast field and there is plenty of opportunity for debate about details which I shall be interested to listen to.

asked the Minister of Defence what is the estimated cost to Great Britain of participation in the multi lateral naval nuclear force; and what consequent reductions this would impose on other forms of defence expenditure.

No decision has yet been made to contribute. The cost to us and thus the affects elsewhere would depend on the form and size of whatever contribution we might decide to make.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this proposal was considered by our defence experts some years ago and dismissed at that time as impracticable? Would it not be most unfortunate if we agreed to go on with this scheme and then found that we had to reduce expenditure on much more essential defence needs elsewhere, a proposal which would meet with considerable opposition from hon. Members on both sides of the House?

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that priorities in defence expenditure are certainly a very important factor in any decision that we reach.

In reply to a previous Question on this subject, did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the cost would be several hundreds of millions of £s? Has he no idea in his head of what it is likely to cost? Are we not entitled to have some inkling from the right hon. Gentleman about the financial details?

If one wants to know rather more about a project than the fact that it may cost several hundreds of millions of £s, the cost to us would depend first on a decision whether we were going to do it, and that has not yet been taken, and, secondly, we would want to know what percentage of that several hundreds of millions of £s we were prepared to pay. In the circumstances, it is not possible to answer questions on these lines.

Is it not clear that if we embarked on this scheme it would cost several hundreds of millions of £s and would not in any way subscribe to our defence against traditional weapons, and that in order to find the money it would be necessary to restrict or cut back our anti-submarine killer submarine programme, which must at all times be given the highest possible priority?

I should make it plain that I am not questioning the validity of these arguments. When I speak of several hundreds of millions of £s I am referring to the total cost and not to the percentage which might be subscribed by this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least tell the House whether, if the Government accept a contribution towards this project, the cost will be taken out of the Naval Appropriation, like the cost of the Polaris submarine programme? Is he aware that many of hon. Members on both sides of the House would regard this as a defence disaster of the first magnitude?

That is an entirely hypothetical question, because no decision has been made to do this or how much we would do if we did. Therefore, it is quite idle to discuss which Vote it would come under

asked the Minister of Defence what is the total expenditure of Her Majesty's Government on creating a military base in Kenya over the last five years.

A little over £5½ million.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible, when there is supposed to be a Cabinet sitting on this country, that Her Majesty's Government should have decided to spend an amount of this magnitude on a base in Kenya at a time when they had already decided to transfer power in Kenya to African politicians who were known to want to discontinue the base as soon as they had independence?

What the programme of expansion was planned, it was not unreasonable to assume that the base would be available for many years. If it were possible to foresee the future for many years, a great many financial positions, in public and private life, would be very different.

May I ask my right hon. Friend for some information? How much of this money was spent in Kenya and how much to the advantage of the Kenya economy?

I could not answer that without notice, but I will try to give my hon. Friend that information.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what consideration has been given to the possible use of H.M.S. "Blake" for sea-going training: and what has been the result.

Consideration has been given to the possible use of H.M.S. "Blake" for sea-going training, but the temporary manpower shortages which have prevented her return to operational service also mean that we have not the necessary trained men to use her as a training ship.

But surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the proposition I made during the debate on the Navy Estimates was that some of the trainees should take the place of the men we were short of and in that way receive a certain amount of training? Are we to understand that, in spite of supplementation from trainees, there is still a shortage of electrical and other manpower?

Yes, Sir. The difficulty is that if what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that the ship should be used as a training ship for these technical personnel, which I understood was the suggestion he made in the debate, we have not the senior instructors to give them the training at sea which they would require. This is our main difficulty. We have a temporary shortage in these particularly sensitive fields, and much as the advice and the suggestion were valuable, I am afraid that they are not practicable.

Is it still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to build ships which they have not men specialised in their particular tasks to man?

No, Sir. That has never been the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and is not now.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why H.M.S. "Blake" is to be put into reserve; and if he will make a statement on the shortage of specialist manpower.

In the debate on the Vote on Account on 18th March last my predecessor gave the answer to the first part of the Question at some length. He also said that there was a long list of remedies, both short-term and long-term, which were in hand to overcome shortages of skilled men, but that these would take time to become effective. I will write to the hon. Member to give him the full details of the measures in hand.

Why were not these shortages foreseen in the first place?

These shortages were not foreseen simply because certain events happened which could not possibly have been foreseen. In particular, we were able to make much better progress than we had expected in the commissioning of ships, and that caused a temporary shortage here. There were certain changes in the run-down in Malta which also caused a problem. The whole matter has been gone into in detail, and I do not think that it would help to go over it again. This is not the result of being foolish and not looking forward; it is the result of success in our efforts.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the skilled men that he is now recruiting will be required for the Polaris programme? When can we expect H.M.S. "Blake" to go into commission again, with electrical and other branches?

There are certain types of job which may be common but I am advised there are not many, and that particular problem is not likely to arise.

May I ask my hon. Friend what success he has had in the recruitment of these special technicians? I had a reply from his hon. Friend previously saying that a special recruiting campaign was going on. Can my hon. Friend tell me how many men he has recruited?

I should like my hon. Friend to put that Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated normal annual wastage of manpower in the dockyards at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport, respectively.

Estimated annual normal wastage at the three southern dockyards is:

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that he said the decline in manpower required at the dockyards was likely to be more than these figures? Are we to take it that the Admiralty now contemplates cutting the manpower used in these dockyards by more than these figures?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should not jump to that conclusion at all.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he has any intention of visiting these various dockyards to ascertain the position for himself, and whether he is going there in the near future?

The answer to both parts of the Question is "Yes".

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the statement made before the Whitsun Recess was that the decline would be made up of these men plus certain other categories. Therefore, it must be greater than the numbers he has indicated.

The words that I used on 29th May were:

"But the order and magnitude of the problem is such that we expect normal wastage, the adjustment of overtime, a fall in the number of men employed over 65 and restriction on adult entry to go a long way towards its solution."—[Official Report, 29th May, 1963, Vol. 678. c. 1323.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that what is normally called wastage is a very serious matter, because what it really means is that when a man retires from a job there is not another job for another man looking for employment What we want to see is this Government maintaining in the Royal Dockyards the present standard of employment and the same number, at least, of people employed there as are employed at the moment.

The use of the expression "wastage" can cover a great many things. The wastage that I had in mind in preparing my answer to the Question covered things like death, discharge and voluntary retirement. There is, of course, a lot of room for misunderstanding of what wastage can mean. A promotion can involve no wastage if the job is phased out. On the other hand, a single promotion could involve wastage of up to six or seven people, so I think that one has to be a little careful in using the expression wastage in that sense.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the progress made by the international fleet, including the£800,000 Royal Research Ship "Discovery", built in Aberdeen, which is exploring the fishing grounds of the Indian Ocean; and when that fleet will direct its scientific activities to exploring the North Sea and fishing grounds further north.

R.R.S. "Discovery" sailed as recently as 31st May last, for a period on station with the International Indian Ocean Expedition which is expected to continue until September next year. There is no proposal that the group of ships which have converged on the Indian Ocean to play their parts in this international project of common world interest should transfer their activities to the North Sea or Northern Waters.

But does not the Minister realise that, in view of the large financial and other contributions which Britain in general and Aberdeen in particular have made to this expedition, some provision should be made for the exploration of the fishing potentialities of the North Sea and of Britain's interest in those fishing areas in particular, and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that some return is made to Britain for those large financial contributions to this expedition?

I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the replies which were given to him on 6th February and 10th April last by my predecessor, who also sent him a copy of the United Kingdom's Scientific Programmes during the International Indian Ocean Expedition. It would, I am afraid, be a complete misuse of the function for which the ship was designed to detail her for inshore and near-water fisheries research.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (1) on what date the transfer of the Admiralty works service staff to the Ministry of Public Building and Works took place;

The date of transfer was 1st April, 1963. A special Sub-Committee of the Admiralty Administrative Whitley Council met twice in February, 1963, to discuss problems thrown up by the transfer. The question was also reviewed at a full meeting of the A.A.W.C on 26th March. In addition there was consultation at local level regarding allocation of staff between the Ministry and certain tasks which were to remain with the Admiralty.

It is most extraordinary. It takes the Admiralty about three months to decide how to buy books for students, and it takes less than two months to make arrangements for the transfer of millions of pounds' worth of building organisation, when the Admiralty have a very long tradition of building. How does it come about that adequate preparation was made to make this transfer at such short notice?

I think the usual efficiency of the Service Departments. All this happened before my time, but as far as I know the trade union side has expressed itself reasonably satisfied and happy with the arrangements which have been made. If it has any views to the contrary, I should be only too willing to look into them.

Would not it be more correct to say that a political decision was taken to make the transfer, and that no preparatory work worth talking about was done at all?

The hon. Gentleman is as inaccurate as usual.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the special terms offered to medical students to become officer cadets in the Army; and what have been the results.

To qualify for the medical cadetship scheme, a medical student must have passed his second M.B. or equivalent examination and be prepared to serve after registration for a minimum period of five years with the Royal Army Medical Corps. When accepted he is granted a probationary commission as a Second Lieutenant. He is then entitled to Army pay and allowances and in addition the War Department pay his tuition fees. So far 139 students have been accepted under the scheme.

I agree that this scheme is beneficial to the Army, to the public and to medical students in general. Would the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no bias against Scottish medical students?

I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes the scheme, which I agree is a good one. I think that it will help to increase the total number of entrants into the medical profession, both civilian and military. As regards the numbers from Scotland entering the scheme, the figure is 24, which I think is more than in proportion.

Is this really a good system? Is this system whereby various Government Departments try to poach people who are urgently required under the National Health Service a sensible way to do it? Would it not be far better to have the National Health Service dealing with the medical requirements of all Government Departments, including the Army?

As I believe was explained to the hon. and learned Member when he raised this question before, this has to be seen against the background of a transition from a system under which doctors were conscripted to one under which they have to be persuaded to join voluntarily, and the rewards offered under this scheme reflect the added disturbance which doctors in military life have to experience compared with their civilian counterparts.