asked the Minister of Defence what consultations took place at the Ottawa Conference, with a view to ensuring that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be capable of resisting conventional attack by the use of conventional forces.

The proceedings of the meeting are, of course, confidential, and I cannot add to the communiqué.

Is the Minister aware that, although that may be the case, there is considerable criticism from our allies that our forces are not adequately equipped to resist a conventional attack? Obviously, there might have been a leak somewhere. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proper equipment of our conventional forces is extremely important—so important that it might even prohibit the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe? Is it not about time that Members received some assurance that we are making an effort to resist a conventional attack by the use of conventional weapons?

I was at Ottawa, and I certainly did not hear any such criticism from our allies. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to paragraph 9 of the communiqué.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether SACLANT is satisfied that he has adequate forces to deal with a conventional war in the Atlantic?

That question has rather wider issues, concerning conventional forces in the naval field. Perhaps we can discuss that separately.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to retain independent nuclear weapons for so long as other countries possess them or have opportunities to acquire them.

It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to retain an independent nuclear deterrent.

Is it not precisely this insistence by the Government that is being used by other countries as a main argument for becoming nuclear Powers themselves? In other words, are not the Government encouraging in this way the spread of A-bombs and H-bombs, which they are said not to be wishing to do?

No, Sir. The Question asked only what our policy is, and I have told the hon. Member what it is.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent German technicians are in control of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Sergeant missile sites in Europe.

I can, of course, accept no responsibility for the arrangements between two foreign Governments. I am, however, informed that German technicians are being trained to handle the Sergeant delivery system and that the warheads will remain in United States custody.

Is not the position now that the German forces have been quipped with these American missiles, have been trained in their use, and probably know where the nuclear warheads are stored, nearby, by the American forces? Is not this an exceedingly dangerous position?

I do not want to pursue this point. I have no responsibility in this matter whatever.

asked the Minister of Defence what plans he has for the reorganisation of the British Army of the Rhine; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement as to the redeployment of the British Army of the Rhine.

I have decided to reorganise the British Army of the Rhine from seven brigade groups to three divisions each of two brigade groups. One infantry brigade group less its armoured regiment will be withdrawn. It will be replaced by additional artillery regiments and various ancillary units, such as engineer and transport units. The net effect will be to achieve a more balanced and effective fighting force. This reorganisation does not involve a reduction in manpower. This organisational plan, of which the N.A.T.O. military authorities have been informed, will, on the basis of current planning, be implemented by the end of 1964.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Would he agree that this change will be generally welcome as increasing the efficiency of B.A.O.R. and enabling military planning to proceed on a more realistic basis? Can he tell the House that this will be achieved without reducing the number of infantry battalions in the British Army either by amalgamation or otherwise?

Yes, I think it will have those advantages. It does not involve the disappearance of battalions from the British Army.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this means that he is reconstituting the divisional structure? Can he give the House an undertaking that, from now on, units of the Rhine Army will be kept up to their establishments and will be effectively equipped so that we may move away from the completely unrealistic policy of the last two years?

The arrangements here are for a three-divisional structure. There will be three divisions each of two brigades, which is the total of six brigades instead of seven. As to equipment, I would say that it is a very well equipped Army now. New equipment is coming in all the time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take another opportunity to go and see for himself.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am more concerned about where our Army is than whether there are three divisions or seven brigade groups? Is the present position that they are about 48 hours from their deployment position, whereas the Russians are about 12 hours from those deployment positions? Is this somewhat unsatisfactory deployment position to be maintained?

Having been there recently, I am satisfied that the arrangements for deployment on the forward strategy are adequate and proper. I am not going into the hours—I do not see why any of us should—but they are adequate and proper for the tactical and strategic requirements of the Western defences in that area.

Was not it decided several years ago, when the Army of the Rhine was being reorganised by the present Government, to depart from the divisional formation and accept the position of brigade groups? Is not this a departure from the existing position? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he speaks about the force being balanced now when all along the Government have claimed that it was?

I do not understand the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Of course it is a change from what was the case before. It is now six brigades instead of seven. It is not a departure from our obligation in this matter, which is that we should work to 55,000, and that is what we intend to do.

The Minister said that N.A.T.O. has been informed of this decision. Does that mean that N.A.T.O. and SACEUR approve? Secondly, we have been told that there will be no difference in the number of men in B.A.O.R. How many men are there? If there are fewer than 55,000 is it proposed to bring the figure up to 55,000? How long has the present brigade structure been in existence and why change it now?

We changed it in order to improve the operational efficiency of the organisation. We are concerned that we should stick to our treaty obligation to bring these forces up to 55,000. It is not necessary to ask for SACEUR approval to this organisation but it is courteous and proper to inform SACEUR.

Is not it the case that this reorganisation proves the point which has been made again and again from this side of the House that the pretence that Her Majesty's Government were maintaining seven brigades in Germany in a state of fighting readiness has been damaging to the alliance and damaging to the efficiency of our own forces? Why has it taken so long for the Government to recognise the importance of this matter?

In the things which have been said to me in defence debates since I have been Minister I do not recall much stress being laid on that point by the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, if he agrees that six brigades is a better organisation than seven, I am happy to see this measure of agreement between the two sides of the House.

Mr. Cronin, Question No. 6.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been invited by the right hon. Gentleman to visit the Rhine Army. Pending my departure, may I ask whether he will answer the question which I asked him about establishment?

I recognise that this is a wide topic and that the enjoyment of the hon. Gentleman's trip will be largely dependent on whether he gets the answer or no. But in the interests of other hon. Members we must get on.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the operational rôle of the V-bomber force while assigned to Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The V-bomber force will, if war comes, and if required to do so, attack certain targets, assigned to it by SACEUR, which are appropriate to its capabilities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in future the V-bomber force concentrates on the useful rôle of acting as a strike force for the direct defence of Europe against invasion and cease to emphasise so much the persistently illusionary rôle of a strategic nuclear deterrent?

I have never held the view that it is a useful approach to defence to say that you must never defend yourself.

asked the Minister of Defence what units of Her Majesty's Forces were sent to Swaziland.

The 1st Battalion, Gordon Highlanders.

Have we so many troops available that we can afford to send the Gordon Highlanders to Swaziland for the purposes of strike breaking? Is not it completely a pretence to say that these troops were sent to preserve law and order when in fact the strikers were dispersed immediately after the troops arrived?

I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary on 18th June in which he dealt fully with this matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman be happy that British troops should be used to suppress a strike by workers whose maximum wage is 30s a week? Is it right to ask British soldiers to do that kind of job?

A lot of questions were asked of my right hon. Friend on this point, and answered, and I do not think I can carry the matter further.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the Minister of Defence a personal responsibility on this kind of issue?

I cannot make the right hon. Gentleman answer or not answer. Nor can I dictate his responsibility. We must get on.

asked the Minister of Defence how many widows of Regular officers of each rank in the three Armed Services, including the Indian Armed Services, are receiving widows' ordinary pensions; in each case how many lost their husbands before 4th November, 1958; and how many of these Regular officers' widows are now over 70 and 75 years of age, respectively.

The Answer to my hon. Friend's question consists of a table of figures which I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has given

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent the pensions of pre-1958 officers' widows reflect the rise in the cost of living compared

I have studied the figures and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting this Question on the Order Paper and enabling me to look at the matter again. This is a matter which deserves proper consideration, which I am giving to it at present.

Has not the Minister of Defence observed that some of these officers' widows are drawing pensions which are well below the National Assistance scales? Is not that a disgraceful state of affairs?

I would not say it is a disgraceful thing; it is a situation which existed under all Governments for a very long time. It is important to remember that this is quite different from a State pension of that character, but I am considering these matters and I do not want to be drawn into all the argument about them.

The answer to my hon. Friend's Question consists of a table of figures which, with permission, I will circulate in the Official Report.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I expect a Tory Government to do a great deal better than a Socialist Government? [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Would he bear in mind that I am very grateful to him for what he said in reply to my previous Question? I have been to see him and have been to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am received most charmingly by most Ministers; but I am not susceptible to charm—I am susceptible to action. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] When am I to get a satisfactory answer to the representations I have made?

In the light of that, I can only invite my hon. Friend to come and see me. I do not know what she

asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements are being made to enable forces to reach the High Commission Territories without utilising airports of the Republic of South Africa available only with the permission of its Government.

We have had arrangements for some years for air access to the Territories.

While deploring the use of troops in Kenya, without even will be susceptible to, but I shall do my best.

Is the Minister aware that the anomalous treatment of the pre-1958 Service pensioner is a hardship and an injustice both to older Service men and to the widows of former Service men? Will he take note of the very serious representations made again and again from both sides of the House calling attention to this matter?

I think that the hon. Member is raising a rather wider question of parity. These Questions are related to a difference in treatment between pre- and post-1958 widows according to the date of their bereavement. It is to that question that I am directing my mind at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman asks what arrangements were made. We did not use South Africa as a staging post in this dispute.

Is it not the case that before those troops were used in Swaziland the permission of the Republic of South Africa had to be obtained so that their airfields at Johannesburg could be used?

No, we did not use them.

asked the Minister of Defence how much money was spent on the Kenya Base subsequent to the Lancaster House Conference at which the African future of Kenya was settled.

There were two conferences at Lancaster House. Between the first in 1960, which merely planned the next step in Kenya's constitutional evolution, and the second, about £4¼ million were spent. It would have been imprudent to stop construction at that stage, though new commitments were drastically reduced. After the 1962 conference, at which internal self-government was agreed, a little over £¼ million was spent on completing or paying for work started in earlier years.

By 1960, was it not quite clear that every single African leader was on record as saying that a British base in Kenya would not be acceptable to an independent African Kenya? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this £4½ million thrown straight down the drain would be more than adequate to cover better pensions for all the widows who have been so shabbily treated and who were referred to in the Questions asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)?

No, Sir.

The Minister, answering a similar Question the other day, expressed his satisfaction at the failure of Her Majesty's Government to predict this type of event. Is this complacency to be regarded as normal in the Government? Does he propose to move in a state of cataleptic trance through every decision of this nature?

I observed that if all of us, either in public or private affairs, could forecast the course of events four or five years ahead, many financial transactions would become much easier.

Before he completely dissolves into tears on this Question, will the Minister persuade those who now hold Kenya's destiny that it would be in the best interests of those in Africa that this base in Kenya should be accepted as a permanent institution and that in the long run it would have the high regard of African opinion?

I think discussions are going on and should go on about the relationships between us and the emerging independent Kenya, which we all wish well, but there are more difficult questions than the general strategic base in an independent Kenya. I shall, however, bear in mind what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said.

While fully supporting what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said in his question, is it not as well to remind ourselves that nothing has yet been decided, so far as we know, about the base in Kenya with all its implications? Should we not remind ourselves that, contrary to what has been said by hon. Members opposite, Mr. Ngala was very much in favour of the maintenance of a military base in Kenya, and Mr. Mboya himself at the time of the election said that K.A.N.U. itself would like to see the retention of the base?

These are all very proper considerations to bear in mind, but, as these discussions are going on and being conducted by my right hon. Friend, I could not add very much further to them.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on British participation in exercise "Thanarat" recently held in Thailand.

British forces taking part in this S.E.A.T.O. exercise included a battalion headquarters and one company of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, some armoured cars and detachments of administrative support units. The R.A.F. provided air transport support, a squadron of Canberras and a squadron of Hunters.

Is it not the case that the exercise has revealed serious weaknesses and deficiencies in the equipment of British Forces, particularly jungle boots, packs and rations? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to remedy these deficiencies?

No, Sir, but the object of an exercise is to reveal deficiencies. That is what we had it for. I hope that no one will discourage exercises of this kind, because they are an invaluable part of the training of the British Army.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the estimated cost of building a covered submarine slipway at Rosyth Royal Naval Dockyard; and how many such slipways are to be constructed there.

No covered slipways are to be built at Rosyth Royal Naval Dockyard. The question of estimated cost therefore does not arise.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is a rather odd decision in view of the fact that it was decided that such a slipway should be built at Chatham, and has been built? Presumably it ensured proper working conditions and that men engaged on submarine construction could work under bad weather conditions. If no such slipway is to be built at Rosyth, where we understand construction is to take place in future, the men will be subjected to very great hardship in the yard in the worst winter weather if they have to work in the open.

Such slipways are required only for building submarines and, since we have no intention of building submarines at Rosyth, there is not much point in providing a slipway of this kind there.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the estimated cost of building an Oberon class submarine is approximately the same as in a private dockyard when employees in the Royal dockyards are paid much less than workers in private yards.

The figures of average earnings per hour for the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry and the marine industry compared with the corresponding figures in the four professional departments at Chatham Dockyard are almost the same.

If that is the case, why is it that the actual artisans working in the Royal dockyard receive approximately two-thirds the amount paid to comparable artisans in private yards? Does it not imply that there is an overloading of costings of the Civil Service and other factors on to the Royal naval dockyards? Will my hon. Friend look at the possibility of getting these reduced in order that the artisans may have comparable payment to those working in private yards?

There is a certain amount of difficulty here because the problem is concerned with the weekly basic rates for time workers in the Royal dockyards, which it is true are below those paid on average in the shipbuilding industry, but much of the payment is by results and in consequence a higher rate is paid than that for the time worker. Many of these things are under active consideration by ourselves with the trade unions.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the total value of work he is placing for the next two years with the Royal dockyards and commercial shipyards.

Orders so far authorised for placing this year include two fleet replenishment ships, three Leander class frigates and a survey ship. One of the frigates is planned to be built in a Royal dockyard; orders for the other ships will be placed with commercial yards by competitive tender. I cannot anticipate what further orders will be placed this year or in 1964–65.

Is the Minister aware that this work is the lifeblood of cities such as Portsmouth and Chatham, which have Royal dockyards? Is he also aware of its tremendous importance to firms like Thorneycroft, which engage in naval construction work? Will he deny the rumour that he proposes to reduce the amount of work which is going out in the next two years? This is of tremendous importance to these cities.

There have been quite a number of rumours floating around recently and it is a little difficult to know to which the hon. Member refers. I recently made a statement in answer to Questions in the House as to the prospective work load on the Royal dockyards, and I am afraid that I can add nothing today to what I said on that occasion.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the normal annual rate of wastage of man power in the three southern dockyards; and if he will provide the actual figures for each of the dockyards annually since 1958.

As I said in the course of supplementaries on 19th June last there is a lot of room for misunderstanding of what wastage can mean and I could not vouch for the accuracy of figures for past years. So far as normal wastage for 1962–63 is concerned I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on the same date.

Can the hon. Member hazard a guess as to how many Questions my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and I have to put down before we drag out of the Minister the number of jobs which will be lost in these dockyards?

I think that it would be very unwise of me to guess on anything, but these matters may possibly be raised in the course of the debate in the next week, and we might be able to examine them more easily than at Question Time.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what estimates he has made of the fall in the number of men employed over 65 years of age during the current year at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport, respectively.

No such estimate has been made.

Is the hon. Member aware that in the course of a statement made on 29th May and his Answer last week it seemed that about 5,000 jobs are to be lost in the three southern dockyards? What is the Admiralty doing to try to find some alternative forms of employment, and what are the Government doing in order to avoid hardship in these ports?

That is a very much wider Question. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding about the exchanges which took place at Question Time last week. As far as the over 65's are concerned—and this is what the Question is about—we cannot estimate with any accuracy which is worth while the fall which there would be in the course of the current year at the three southern dockyards. As for the future, when the work load declines and if redundancy occurs, we would seek naturally to let it fall, to begin with, on the over-65's, who have already reached retiring age but have continued to work because they wanted to do so and because we wanted them to do so.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this constant uncertainty is most damaging to the morale of everybody in the dockyards and in the dockyard towns? Will he exercise himself to the utmost in order to try to give some much more tangible answer in the debate which is to take place next week?

I agree with the hon. Member that uncertainty, if it exists, is damaging. The Answer which I gave a fortnight ago was intended to clear up a lot of the uncertainty, and all the information coming to me suggests that to a very great extent that uncertainty has in fact been dissipated. If there is anything further which I can add in the debate next week, I shall be only too happy to do so.

Surely the hon. Member appreciates that in the original statement it was said that to the number which would be lost as a result of wastage must be added those spelled out in my Question? If that is the case, the number must be getting on for 5,000.

I am afraid that the hon. Member is again falling into the pitfall into which he fell a week ago. In my Answer of 29th May I said that we expected a number of factors to deal with any decline in the labour force, and those factors were, amongst others, normal wastage, restriction on overtime, restriction of adult entry and a fall in the number of men over 65.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the use of Her Majesty's naval vessels as agents on behalf of foreign Governments for the purpose of arresting British subjects or ships owned by British nationals.

Her Majesty's ships are not used in this way.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 22nd May he indicated to me that H.M.S "Palliser" had not only stopped a British ship but had boarded her and immobilised the engines of the trawler so that she could be arrested by the Icelandic Government vessel? Is not the British Government getting a little tired, as the fishing industry is getting a little tired, of piracy on the high seas which is taking place on this issue, when a 24-mile limit is being applied by the Icelandic Government? Is it to be the Government's policy to assist them?

No, Sir. I think that the hon. Member should perhaps look again at the reply which I gave to him on 22nd May about the action of Her Majesty's ship "Palliser". It is important to remember that the "Odin" was claiming the right of hot pursuit and was believed to be prepared to use force to effect an arrest. The trawler's skipper had refused to submit to arrest and a violent clash with the "Odin" appeared imminent. The decision of the commanding officer of the "Palliser" to immobilise the "Milwood" was taken to prevent bloodshed, and Her Majesty's ship was in no sense the agent of the Icelandic Government. I am sure that the action of the commanding officer in these extremely difficult and confused circumstances was correct.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when and where construction of the third nuclear-propelled hunter-killer submarine for the Royal Navy will begin.

Fabrication of components has already started for the third nuclear-propelled hunter-killer submarine ordered for construction at Barrow.

Is it not a very unsound policy to concentrate the building of the nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines and to allocate both pairs of the Polaris vessels in the north-west of England? Is it not in the national interest to try to see the spread of these contracts in the different shipbuilding rivers of the country so that the technical ability and "know-how" of providing these vessels, both in war and in peace, will be spread more widely?

The hon. Member has perhaps not appreciated—as frankly I had not until I learned about it—that building these submarines is wholly different from the technique used in the building of a conventional vessel. In fact, many parts are fabricated well away from the shipyards in question and are assembled on the site. For example, orders of about £1 million for component parts will be placed in Scotland, and other parts of the country will also benefit.

Would it not be a good thing if these special techniques were also available to be used on the Clyde, a very great shipbuilding area?

It is not for me to agree or to disagree with the hon. Member about that, but certainly I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has been very interested indeed in trying to get shipyards generally to adopt some more modern techniques in respect of some parts of their work.

Is the Minister aware that three of these submarines are not enough to meet the future needs of the Royal Navy?

The Minister's answer underlines the anxiety which is felt. It is just because it is a new technique that considerable anxiety is felt that Messrs. Scotts have not been asked to take part in this new development. Will he give an assurance that this does not mean that all future building of atomic submarines will be confined to two yards? Will he give an assurance that Messrs, Scotts are in fact sharing in the sub-contracting of which he spoke?

I cannot answer the second part of that supplementary question without notice. Answering the first part of the question, we look at each of the orders on their merits.

On a point of order. I give notice that I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how much pension is now received for herself and one child by the widow of a commander who retired after maximum service on the 1956 Code and died on 3rd November, 1958; and how much would she receive for herself and her child if he had died the next day, assuming in both cases that she is 50 years of age.

Including the child's pension, £274 6s. a year and £414 3s. a year respectively.

This is a similar point to one raised earlier this afternoon with the Minister of Defence. Is it not quite unfair that the widow who by misfortune lost her husband one day before 4th November, 1958, should receive little more than half as much as she would receive if he had died the next day? Surely this is illogical. Is it not high time that the Government ended this discrimination against widows of members of the Armed Forces?

I cannot accept the implication in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I do not think that there is any discrimination in the pejorative sense in which he used the word. Whenever there is a change of policy, there is bound to be a dividing line, and when that is a date some people find themselves on one side and others, perhaps more fortunate, are on the other side. I cannot say that this is a matter which is peculiar to the Royal Navy. I will take note of the point made and bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend think that this sort of anomaly is acceptable? Does he appreciate the feeling there is inside and outside the Services? Does it not make a nonsense of the so-called principle of immutability?

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said earlier his afternoon, we are well aware of the views held on these matters. They are being constantly looked at. I cannot go beyond that this afternoon.

Surely it is inevitable that the principle of one pension for one service has to be adopted? Is it not a question of the sooner the better?

I am afraid that I can only answer for one Service.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when his Department will apply for improvement grants to modernise the coastguard cottages which it lets to Admiralty personnel at the No the, Weymouth.

The hon. Member presumably refers to the standard and discretionary grants made by local authorities to private landlords financed by the Treasury under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, and the Housing Financial Provisions Act, 1958. Such grants however are not applicable to Government-owned property. My Department cannot therefore apply for these grants in respect of the cottages at the No the, Weymouth, which are, incidentally, held by the Admiralty on a lease due to expire in March, 1966.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements are made for the accommodation and education of the families of Her Majesty's Royal Navy at the naval base at Bahrain.

Apart from the commanding officer's official residence and 12 married quarters for ratings, all the accommodation for Naval families in Bahrain is hired, either under Service arrangements administered by the Royal Air Force, or privately.

Why have men been encouraged to go from Aden to Bahrain on the condition that, if they go there, they can take their families? When they have found accommodation at fantastic prices they then find, despite the fact that their wives have got rid of their houses in England, have had the children inoculated, and so on, that they are unable to get their families to join them.

I was not aware of the point made by my hon. Friend in the first part of her supplementary question. If that is so, it would certainly need looking at, and perhaps she would allow me to do so.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement about the aircraft carrier replacement programme.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) on 19th March. I have nothing further to add at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about the continued delay in reaching a decision on this important matter? Can he assure the House that, if for political reasons the Government decide to go ahead with the construction of a mixed-manned Polaris surface force, even then the aircraft carrier replacement programme will have a clear priority?

I am aware that there is some feeling on this matter which is certainly not only in the House. We will certainly come to a conclusion about it as soon as we properly can, taking account of the point my hon. Friend makes.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement as a result of his recent visit to Portland, in particular on the future policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to Admiralty establishments there.

The purpose of my visit to Portland was to visit H.M. ships "Hampshire" and "Verulam", to inspect the sea training facilities operated from this base, and to inspect certain buildings in the base itself.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated extent of the shortages of technically skilled manpower in Her Majesty's ships at present in commission; and when it is expected these will be made good.

Current shortages of skilled men in Her Majesty's ships in commission is confined to the weapons, electrical and radio departments. Complements in these departments have been temporarily reduced. As to the second part of the Question, my predecessor wrote to the hon. Gentleman after the Navy Estimates debate listing measures taken to deal with the shortages and said that the full effects would not be achieved in the fleet for some time. Meanwhile, our recruiting of new entries is going well.

May I express my thanks for the letter? Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the position has improved over what it was a year ago when about nine ships were without their full complement and in another 46 ships junior ratings were doing the jobs of senior ratings?

As I have been in this office for so short a time, I should like notice before I could answer that supplementary question, but I do not think that the situation can be anything like as bad as the hon. Gentleman says it was a year ago, because I should have been told about it if it were so.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what proposals he has for troop landing exercises in the Zennor area of west Cornwall.

The Admiralty is seeking to use, with the consent of the owners, about 355 acres of moorland in the Zennor district of west Cornwall for training pilots and Royal Marines in deploying from and re-embarking in helicopters in difficult and realistic operational conditions.

Will the Minister bear in mind that this area has been designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty and that the moorland over which these troops will exercise probably has concentrated in a few square miles more prehistoric monuments than there are in any other part of Great Britain? Will he also bear in mind that there is strong opposition but that I am hopeful that other areas which would not seem to be controversial will be suggested? If he will allow me, I will tell him of one or two.

In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I am indeed well aware of the factors to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. I should be most happy to accept his offer of mediation or help, however one likes to put it, because I fear that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding as to what it is we would like to be able to do. All that is in question is simply putting men down from helicopters and then picking them up at another place when they have gone over the intervening distance on foot.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will arrangedaily opening to the public of the grounds of the Royal Observatory at Herstnionceux Castle, Sussex.

The Observatory grounds are open to the public on Monday, Wed- nesday and Thursday afternoons from April to October. I regret that opening the grounds to the public at the weekends is not practicable, as additional staff would have to be engaged to safeguard the building and equipment contained therein.

Is the Civil Lord aware that these are very beautiful grounds and that immense credit is due to those who lay them out and maintain them? Since they cost large sums of public money, ought not the public to be allowed the same sort of regular access to them as they enjoy to other Ministry of Works buildings?

I am aware that these grounds are of very great beauty indeed. It is a question of balance. We think that on the present evidence there is plenty of opportunity for the public to visit them, but to open them at weekends, as is suggested, would undoubtedly increase the expense substantially, because of the additional staff which we should have to employ.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state for the most recent convenient 12-month period the number of visitors to the Royal Observatory at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, the revenue received from visitors, and the cost of the upkeep of the castle grounds.

In 1962 there were 5,276 visitors and the revenue received from them was £542. The gross cost of upkeep of the estate and grounds was £6,400, and the net cost, after taking account of revenue from other sources, £4,323.

Do not these figures underline my case? Would it not help the Exchequer a little if there were regular daily openings?

On the contrary, the expense might rise considerably if we had to employ a substantial number of staff at weekends.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the Director Commandant of the Women's Royal Naval Service was provided with a special Service aircraft to fly from Lee-on-Solent to Oslo on 27th May; if he will state the type of aircraft, the number and ranks of the crew, the number of days the aircraft was away from its base, and the cost of petrol, oil and other expenses; what steps were taken, and with what result, to compare the total cost with that of a return fare by British European Airways scheduled aircraft; and why this lady did not travel by this method.

The Director of the Women's Royal Naval Service, accompanied by her secretary, a 2nd officer, W.R.N.S., was flown from Lee-on-Solent to Oslo on 27th May for the purpose of paying an official visit of inspection to the W.R.N.S. unit stationed in this foreign capital and of advising the Royal Norwegian naval authorities on certain matters connected with their own women's naval service. The aircraft used was a Sea Devon of the communications flight of the Royal Naval Home Air Command. Its crew consisted of one lieutenant R.N. and one petty officer. It was away from its base for just over four days; but during part of that time it was engaged on other duty flights. The cost of the petrol and oil consumed in connection with the visit of D.W.R.N.S. and of subsistence for the crew in Oslo was about £100.

At how many naval air stations is there a policy of giving joy rides to all civilians, irrespective of the cost? What control is exercised by the Admiralty over the unnecessary use of Service aircraft to prevent the waste of large sums of money, particularly when civilian scheduled air services are available? Who approved this expensive flight and why did this lady not travel by B.E.A.?

With respect, I should have thought that, in the light of the facts I have been able to give, the hon. Gentleman would have chosen the opportunity of his supplementary question to withdraw some of the statements he made to the Press about this matter before he knew what the facts were.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the V.I.P. helicopter at Lee-on-Solent was flown to the Isle of Wight on the afternoon of 15th June; for how long it was employed; what was the total cost to Government funds of fuel, oil and other expenses; if he will state the names and offices of the civilian passengers; and whether they were insured against all risks by their own or special insurance policies, or signed a statement that, in the event of an accident, they would make no claim on public funds.

The Commanding Officer, Lee-on-Solent, was asked by the Mayor of Gosport on the afternoon of Saturday, 15th June, whether he could be conveyed urgently to the Isle of Wight where his mother-in-law had just been taken seriously ill.

How far is this service available to all civilians and how far, for example, would it be available to ratings who wished to fly by helicopter from Lee-on-Solent to the Isle of Wight under similar conditions? How far is this old school tie business between commanding officers—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—yes indeed, these services are only available under the old school tie arrangement. How far is this old school tie business between commanding officers, mayors and other authorities carried? Why was this helicopter loaned to Southern Television and why is it used to provide a taxi service between Lee and H.M.S. "Vernon" when the journey by road transport takes only about half an hour? What control does the Admiralty exercise over helicopters in the naval air service to stop this gross abuse of them?

The hon. Member has sought to put in a supplementary form a number of questions which he has down for Written Answer today. I think that he had better await those Answers. On the main point, our regulations provide that commanding officers of Her Majesty's ships and naval air stations may authorise nights in naval aircraft under their control for Members of Parliament, senior civic dignitaries, representatives of local Press, radio and television services, tutors and schoolmasters of universities, schools and colleges, provided—and I emphasise this—that there is no extra cost to Navy Votes. In respect of this particular journey by the Mayor of Gosport no extra cost will fall on Navy Votes because the mayor agreed—indeed, he agreed before the flight—to pay.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will publish the Weeks Report on War Office Building, together with a report on the results achieved since the adoption of its recommendations.

No, Sir.

Does not the Undersecretary realise that with the changeover of the works services organisation from his Department to the new Ministry, the implications of the Weeks Report and the way the change-over was carried out, the matter is of the greatest importance to this House so that hon. Members and the public can judge how effective is the new organisation? Has the War Office anything to hide, because before the Estimates Committee on 14th May several complimentary remarks were made about the works services organisation? What, therefore, is to be hidden, and why?

The answer contains a simple point. It is that it would be con- trary to the normal practice to publish a Departmental report of this character. That is the widespread practice of Government Departments. There is nothing whatever to hide.

As one who has read the Weeks Report, may I ask the Minister whether he has read it and why, from his own reading of it rather than on the say-so of somebody in a Government Department, the Report should not be placed in the Library? Is he aware that I had some difficulty when I wanted to read it in connection with certain responsibilities concerning this side of the House? His predecessor made no difficulty about giving it to me to read and since there is nothing in the Report which makes it confidential from the point of view of hon. Members, should it not be placed in the Library?

It is a question of Departmental practice. If we are to have reports of this character written freely and frankly for Departmental use it is a wise practice to abstain from publication.

asked the Secretary of State for War on what date the transfer of the War Office works services staff to the Ministry of Public Building and Works took place.

On 1st April, 1963.

How does it come about that on 14th May complimentary things were being said about the works services organisation of the War Office in Estimates Committee B, while 10 months later the whole organisation was transferred to a new Department, the implications being that that organisation of the War Office was defective and needed great reorganisation? Surely the Weeks Report should be published or there are grave implications that there were defects in this works services organisation before that date?

I cannot accept what the hon. Member says. From the strictly Departmental point of view the previous arrangements worked extremely well and there is no sign that the present arrangements will not work equally well from the point of view of the War Office and, for all I know, the other Service Departments. The new arrangements have wider advantages in the context of national building policy, which I think are accepted.

Short of publication of the Report, may we not have a copy of it placed in the Library?

I will undertake to consider that, but without commitment.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider his decision in regard to the refusal of a resettlement grant for 23517380 Guardsman E. J. Richardson, Scots Guards, discharged from the service consequent on the loss of his right eye owing to an accident sustained while on training.

No, Sir. Resettlement grants were paid to soldiers who were discharged during the period of major redundancy with at least 15 years' service or who were invalided from engagements for at least 15 years. Guardsman Richardson was given a free discharge, and as he had less than 15 years' service he did not qualify for a resettlement grant.

I thank my hon. Friend for the interest he has shown in this case. Can he not do anything for this badly wounded man who was injured accidentally in the course of honourable service? Does my hon. Friend realise that, while my constituent appreciates the interest he has shown, what he really wants is a resettlement grant that will enable him to enlist or make a useful life for himself in an alternative service, for which his attainments so well fit him?

I appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes and, of course, we have had a lengthy correspondence about it. I think that the answer to his constituent's concern is that Guardsman Richardson is receiving a disability pension, for which he is eligible, and this is open to reassessment in the normal way if his condition were to deteriorate.

asked the Secretary of State for War the cost of sending troops to Swaziland.

asked the Secretary of State for War what regiments of British troops and how many men have been sent for service in Swaziland; when they were sent there; and if he will make a statement.

The troops arrived in Swaziland between 13th and 18th June. The force is composed of the First Battalion of the Gordon Highlanders and certain supporting sub-units. The movement costs are about £110,000.

Does the hon. Gentleman seek to justify this expenditure on the dispatch of the Gordon Highlanders to Swaziland for the purpose of assisting to break a strike? Is he aware that there has been for many years a definite understanding in the War Office, and in the Service Departments generally, that troops are not to be deployed for the purpose of strike breaking? Why this expenditure at this time?

I canont go beyond what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said a few minutes ago in reply to a similar question from the right hon. Gentleman.

Is not strike breaking by troops sent to Swaziland for that purpose a disgraceful abuse of the purpose for which men join the Army? Will the Under-Secretary take steps to see that this disgraceful practice and abuse is abolished and not used any more?

I cannot accept what the hon. and learned Member says about strike breaking. British troops are properly used for the preservation of law and order.

Will the Under-Secretary seek to justify what he has just said by informing the House whether it is not the fact that there was only some disorder as a result of a strike having taken place, and that the troops were sent in order to force the men back to work, which, in fact, happened after the troops had been there for some little time? Was it not a clear case of sending troops for the purpose of breaking a strike?

I have nothing to add to my original Answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

In view of the very unsatisfactory Answer given by the Under-Secretary, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.