asked the Minister of Defence if he will consider a revision of the 1948 agreement with Nepal to provide for a larger number of Gurkhas to be enlisted by the United Kingdom for the Gurkha Brigade.

As I stated on 20th November in reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), it has been decided to make no reduction in the strength of the Gurkhas for the time being.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, although our agreement with Nepal of 1948 allowed Britain eight battalions of Gurkhas and India 12 battalions, India, I am informed, has at present no fewer than 42 battalions of Gurkhas? I do not blame India for that, but, in view of the drop in British recruiting announced by the Secretary of State for War last Monday, will my right hon. Friend consider recruiting more of these very fine soldiers from Nepal who are extremely eager to serve with the British Army?

Like my right hon. and gallant Friend, I value highly the services of the Gurkhas, but I see no reason to increase their recruitment, which in any case is a long-term remedy, whereas deferment of planned run-down brings immediate benefit.

I support very strongly the request made by the right hon. and gallant Member. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Gurkha troops have proved themselves exceptionally suitable for the rôle which British Forces have to perform in the Far East, notably in Malaysia and Hong Kong, and that there is at present a serious shortage of British troops in these areas? Will the Minister, therefore, reconsider the Government's proposal ultimately to cut Gurkha recruiting?

I do not accept that there is a shortage of British troops in those areas, and I emphasise that the rôle of the Gurkhas is world-wide.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas the recruitment and training of Gurkhas is a long-term policy, there are long-term difficulties in South-East Asia and the area is not likely to be pacified at an early date? Will he, therefore, read my speech last Monday wherein I asked for consideration of an increase in the Gurkha strength in the British Army from 14,600 to 20,000 Gurkhas?

I shall read my hon. Friend's speech with the same attention that I address to all his speeches. I emphasise again that it would be a great mistake for any of us to talk about the Gurkhas as being associated with one area only. They have a world-wide rôle.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that many of us have pressed that no reduction should be made in the Gurkha strength of the British Army? Would he make it clear that the suggestion made the other day during the debate on the Order continuing the Army Act that the strength should be increased to 20,000 is hopelessly impracticable?

I do not know about it being impracticable. The Gurkhas are doing a very fine job. There is a good rô1e for them in the numbers which I have planned. I am not prepared to go further than that at present.

Will my right hon. Friend realise that the present position whereby the cuts announced on 14th March are not rescinded but are not at present being implemented is not very satisfactory to the people at the other end, such as recruiting officers and the men who have to make up their minds whether or not to join the Gurkhas, and particularly to the British officers who have to decide whether or not to make a career in the Gurkhas? Will he consider making a rather firmer and longer-term statement on the whole policy of the recruitment of Gurkhas and British officers for Gurkha regiments?

I fully appreciate the force of my right hon. and gallant Friend's point about having some stability and certainty in these matters, and I will bear it in mind.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will appoint a committee to investigate how best to achieve the speedy removal of abandoned war-time hostels, military camps and airfields in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir; but if my hon. Friend will let me know the details of what he has in mind, I will investigate the matter myself.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country is covered with old sites which are not only eyesores but a very serious waste of agricultural land? Does he agree that Government policy in the past has made it extremely difficult, for financial reasons, to get these sites restored to their proper use? Will he take action in this matter? It is far too long since the end of the war to have these relics still disfiguring our countryside.

I am only suggesting to my hon. Friend that there are better ways of doing these things than by appointing a committee. Some of these sites are owned by my Department, some are not. I cannot do much about those which are not owned by my Department, but if my hon. Friend will let me know, in writing or verbally, precisely what his proposal is, I will do what I canto investigate it myself.

Is the Minister aware that these sites are worth to a small nation such as ours a value quite different from their worth to an individual owner? We cannot afford to leave our countryside cluttered up like this. Will the right hon. Gentleman co-ordinate his policy with that of the Minister of Transport under which a lot of hard core is required for the road programme? If these two policies were co-ordinated it could make the clearance of these sites, as is certainly happening in a number of districts, very much cheaper. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this road building opportunity is not missed?

I will certainly bear the point in mind.

asked the Minister of Defence what arrangements are made to assist the transfer of Service men redundant in one Service to another of the Armed Services.

These arrangements are at this moment being worked out in consultation with the Services.

Is the Minister aware that very large numbers of men in at least 13 trades in the Royal Air Force are being offered free discharges? Would it not be a pity if this valuable manpower were dissipated without any real attempt being made by somebody to see whether or not use can be made of their services either in the Army or the Navy?

There are 1,300 men who are redundant in the Royal Air Force. Steps are being taken to ensure that they are offered the opportunity of transferring to other Services.

asked the Minister of Defence when he expects to complete the project study for a replacement for the Hunter and Sea Vixen.

The project study has been completed but it raised a number of problems, the implications of which are the subject of further examination.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is what he has told us previously? Would he make it clear that it is still the Government's intention to proceed with a common aircraft for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy?

If the hon. Gentleman had heard my earlier reply, he would have known that there are difficulties in producing an aircraft capable of common operation from carriers and the land. I do not want to repeat the details of what I stated on an earlier occasion.

When this aircraft is announced for the Navy, is it anticipated that it will have a vertical takeoff capacity?

The aircraft to which the Question refers is one with a vertical take-off capacity.

Is the Minister aware that there is serious concern in the aircraft industry at widespread reports that the Royal Navy is considering buying Phantoms and that the Royal Air Force is considering the purchase of foreign planes? Can he assure us that a decision will be taken on the future of the P.1154 in the next few weeks? Otherwise, the decision may, in effect, pass out of Her Majesty's Government's hands.

I am not in the least responsible for speculation in the newspapers, and I would not attempt to answer for it. My concern is to see that any operational requirement is properly studied and that no project is started which is bound to be very expensive, whatever the choice, without a full examination.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of President Kennedy's declaration this summer of a moratorium on all United States nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere and of Mr. Khrushchev's decision to cut Soviet arms budgets whether or not the United States of America cuts hers, he will now consider making a cut in Great Britain's arms expenditure.

No, Sir. Our expenditure is kept to the minimum consistent with our own defence needs and with our obligations to our allies. These commitments have not yet been reduced, either by the Nuclear Test Ban Agreement or by any changes of policy by the Soviet Government.

Does the Minister admit to the fact stated in the Question and, in addition, the serious proposals being made in certain quarters of the Senate, notably on 2nd August, for an immediate reduction of 10 per cent. in America's arms expenditure without waiting for international agreement? Is not this the moment when Britain should be moving in the same direction rather than increasing her expenditure as she is?

I would agree that there has been a Test Ban agreement, for which I think all hon. Members are thankful. I would also agree that Mr. Khrushchev will not build up a surplus of arms that he does not want, and nor will I. But that does not involve a decrease in the defence budget.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the impact on British defence policy and expenditure of the important statement by Mr. McNamara a few weeks ago, in which he indicated that the Western defence experts had been wrong for 10 years in their estimates of Soviet forces, which are now thought to be only half what they were thought to be? Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity to make a statement on that?

The hon. Gentleman has misread Mr. McNamara's statement. He said nothing of which we did not have full knowledge or with which we disagreed. There is nothing in that statement which would lead to a reduction of British forces in Europe. Indeed, Mr. McNamara would be astounded if any such reduction were made.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that I have misread the statement, is he saying that the lengthy report in The Times and the editorial comment in The Times—for which I realise that he is not responsible—were quite wrong?

I am saying that the hon. Gentleman's gloss on the report which he gave in his supplementary question was inaccurate.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, following the discussions in Washington and Paris, he has now authorised British forces to participate in the proposed mixed-manning trials, in connection with the negotiations for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force.

No, Sir; but I think it likely that just as we have participated without any commitments in the talks, we would consider taking some part in an experiment associated with them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the members of the Government party present at the Western European Union Assembly, meeting in Paris last week, supported the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in opposing the multilateral force? Is the Minister aware that there is deep concern on both sides of the House that Her Majesty's Government may find themselves committed to support the multilateral force by a series of small administrative decisions, rather in the way that, in the end, they were committed to membership of the Common Market, although they went into the negotiations without any prior commitment?

I do not see why a willingness to discuss problems with one's friends or allies, or even to indulge in small experiments with them, necessarily commits one to courses which one does not wish to follow.

Will my right hon. Friend note that although the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) may speak for his side of the House, he must not speak for both sides of the House on an issue of this sort?

As I was at the meeting of Western European Union and the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was not, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that we on this side were antagonistic to the idea of a nuclear executive for Europe but not necessarily antagonistic to the multilateral force, and that that was the reason why we supported the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition?

This question of a multilateral force raises many and difficult issues; that is generally accepted. The Question refers to whether we would participate in an experiment. If the details of one were put before us, we would consider it, but that would not commit us to the enormous expense of going in for this multilateral force any more than would the discussions upon which we are now engaged.

Will the Minister at least maintain his opposition to the previous Foreign Secretary's views on this issue now that the previous Foreign Secretary is Prime Minister?

As the hon. Member knows, the Government speak with one voice in these matters.

asked the Minister of Defence what security arrangements are put in hand when communications are made to the Press with regard to new equipment supplied to the three Services.

My instructions are that it should be given the maximum of information consistent with not disclosing knowledge which might be useful to an enemy.

Will the Minister explain why photographs and hitherto secret details of the TSR2 were released to the Press and to potential enemies of this country? Is it not a fact that anyone with an elementary knowledge of aerodynamics could calculate the full operational performance of the TSR2 from this information? Is this not an occasion when the Government have dangerously compromised the security of a new aircraft for the purpose of party advantage?

I do not think so. Those details were released because it was not thought that they would really be of value to an enemy. One can exaggerate the importance of denying information, most of which is published in every technical journal here and in America, and pretending that it is somehow a matter of security.

We cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with this. Is he not aware that about a dozen Members, from both sides of the House, who were specially cleared for security were not permitted to sketch even a model of the TSR2 because of the enormous advantage to a potential enemy of obtaining such information?

It depends when they asked for it. If the hon. Member were to go along now, I should be happy to give him a model if it is of any help to him.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, at some date in September, it was possible to release this information whereas consistently during the history of this aircraft he and his right hon. Friends have refused information to hon. Members in answer to Questions in this House?

It is quite right in the early stages of development of an aircraft not to publish every detail of what one is doing, but when we are more advanced, as I am happy to say we are now, with the TSR2—which is a magnificent example of British engineering—I see no reason why we should be shy about it and I see no reason why we should not publish photographs of it.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the military situation in Sarawak and Sabah.

I have little to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 25th November in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). Armed incursions, and intrusions by military aircraft, continue to be made from bases in Indonesian territory, and our forces continue to co-operate with those of the Malaysian Government in the protection of Eastern Malaysia.

Bearing in mind the large concentrations of Indonesian troops on the frontiers of these territories and the frequent violation of Malaysian air space, is the Minister satisfied that the Malaysian and British troops available are adequate for any emergency which might arise? Furthermore, can he reassure the House that every effort will be made to enable the Malaysian forces to participate more in the defence of their territories and, therefore, release British soldiers from this rather disagreeable and arduous task?

The ineffectiveness of the attacks so far and the competence with which they have been handled would seem to indicate that the forces are adequate. As to the Malaysians, theirs is the full responsibility for this area. Malaysia is a free and independent country and I entirely accept the view that the Malaysians should play an ever-increasing part in these events.

As one who recently had the opportunity of visiting Sabah and Sarawak, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied with the provision of the means of communication between the various sections of the Army, and particularly the supply of helicopters and other aircraft, especially the Canadian one? Is he satisfied that this has been attended to?

I think so. I never say lightly that I am completely satisfied with equipment I intend to pay a visit to this theatre immediately after Christmas, in the first part of January. If the right hon. Gentleman will ask me when I return, I will give him a more informative answer.

I strongly support my right hon. Friend's reference to the need for helicopters in this theatre of operation. It was impressed upon all members of a recent Parliamentary delegation by those in the forces whom they met. Is there any indication of readiness by the Australian and New Zealand Governments to permit the participation in the campaign in Borneo of troops of the Commonwealth brigade now serving in Malaya?

On a point of order. As I put down a Question on this topic to the Minister of Defence for today and it was transferred to the Commonwealth Secretary, how can the Minister of Defence answer it now?

That does not raise a point of order for me.

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question raises a wider issue which, I agree, would be dealt with more appropriately by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary. At least, it is separate from the Question which appears on the Paper today. I am not saying the final word about helicopters, but the requirement recently assessed by the commander-in-chief has been met in full.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to his latest plans for the improvement of the telephone service, he will now hasten the introduction of automatic dialling for the Hainault and Loughton exchanges.

Automatic equipment, with provision for S.T.D., for new exchange sat Hainault and Loughton is now being manufactured. Both exchanges should be ready for service by about the middle of 1965; if we can improve on that timetable, we will.

In view of the very ambitious programme of Post Office development which my right hon. Friend has announced to the House, will everything possible be done further to speed up this very modest improvement which would be most beneficial to the business and social life of my constituency?

Yes, certainly.

asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone fault 5 reported, for comparable periods during the years 1952–62, inclusive.

There are no statistics for the years prior to 1956. I will, with permission, circulate the figures for subsequent years in the Official Report. They show a progressive improvement.

In thanking the Postmaster-General for that reply and for the figures which he is circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I ask whether he is satisfied that the efficiency of this section of his Department is as high and sustained as it might be?

I am never satisfied with anything, but about 77 per cent. of faults are cleared on the day they are reported.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a lot of complaint in the London area about no pick-up calls, particularly in the telephone area in my constituency? Is he aware that these things do not get reported and that, therefore, unless the maintenance is very good, there is no way of having it put right?

I have that matter under consideration.

asked the Postmaster-General to what extent telephone subscribers are reimbursed for periods when their telephones are out of order.

Subscribers are not entitled to reimbursement for periods when their telephones are out of order, but telephone managers have discretion to make rebates in individual cases. More than three-quarters of all faults are cleared on the day they are reported; most of those carried over are reported late in the day and are cleared on the following day. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind I will gladly look into it.

Is the Minister aware that there appears to be an increasing number of faults which are not remedied within the 24 hours? Will he remember, first, his monopoly position in this respect and that it is his business to satisfy subscribers as far as possible? Will he also bear in mind that the telephone is becoming indispensable to more and more people as each month passes? Will he try to make certain that the reliability of his service is attended to with the same care with which he attends to the promotion of technical improvements?

Yes. I have all those considerations in mind, but the fact is that the proportion of faults which are reported is falling constantly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and try to make telephone rental reimbursement an established practice? Is he not aware that because of the rapid change-over which is now taking place from manual to automatic exchanges, some subscribers suffer long delays for engineering maintenance because many of the lines are temporarily out of order? Secondly, there may be branches of a union which occasionally might be working to rule. This is not the fault of the subscribers but, nevertheless, their telephones may be delayed unnecessarily for repair. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of 500 in the technical grades in London and that more are required in those grades in the provinces and that, therefore, until the situation is rectified, reimbursement for telephone rentals should be a recognised practice when the delay is unusually long?

I am aware of all those factors. From the viewpoint of a residential telephone, however, the value is less than 1s. a day and to give rebates automatically would increase our costs out of all proportion to the amounts involved.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inadequate telephone facilities in the new housing areas in the Burgh of Irvine; how many applicants are awaiting installations; what is the average waiting time for installations; and what steps he proposes to take to speed up the provision of telephones in this area.

My right hon. Friend is sorry about the delays in providing telephones in new housing areas in the Burgh of Irvine, where there are 67 orders on the waiting list. In consequence of the plans announced in the recent White Paper on the Inland Telephone Service, the position is now being reviewed with a view to speeding up matters.

The composition of the waiting list is constantly changing, and I am sorry that we cannot give a reliable average waiting time.

I am very pleased that the Assistant Postmaster-General is to review the position, but is he aware, and will he inform his right hon. Friend if he does not know, that the local authority in this area has undertaken an onerous financial burden in order to open up an industrial estate, and has brought many factories there? Should he not measure up to the initiative of the local authority and have his Department moving at the same speed to provide the necessary services to help industrial communications in that area?

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. It is our aim to make certain that we can keep in line. But I would remind the House that the Question refers to two new housing estates, and that, with many thousands of new housing estates developing throughout the country, there are times when we might lag a little. Nevertheless, with the reorganisation and special attention that is being given, we hope to be a little ahead in the future.

asked the Postmaster-General why there is continued inadequate provision of telephone lines for industry going into the overspill area in the neighbourhood of Lichfield.

I understand that in the overspill area there are no people waiting for business telephones, but there are a number of outstanding applications for home telephones on new residential estates where cable laying is in progress.

The hon. Member has written to my right hon. Friend about delay in giving residential telephone service to an applicant in an adjoining area. I am looking into the particular case to which the hon. Member has drawn my right hon. Friend's attention and will write to him as soon as possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that evidently his Departmental intelligence is very seriously lacking? Is he aware that on many occasions I have drawn his attention to the inadequacy of lines for the overspill area requirement, both industrial and private, and since it is a part of national policy to transfer industry and the population attached to industry to the overspill receiving areas, will he look into this matter again? What is the use of advertising that more telephones are available if industrialists cannot get them?

Yes, Sir. Of course, there is no point in advertising unless the telephones are freely available. It is obvious that this is one of the difficult areas. As I have said, I am looking into this particular matter, and I will look at the wider issue again as well.

I have raised it four times.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the total capital investment in the manufacture of telephones and telephone communications for the current year; and what value and percentage is being manufactured in Scotland.

asked the Postmaster-General what percentage of the contracts, expressed in money terms, in connection with his £900 million capital investment programme during the next five years will go to firms in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Aycliffe, respectively.

My right hon. Friend expects to spend about £80 million on supplies of this equipment during the current year. Of this, about 1½ per cent. will be spent in Scotland, and about 1¼ per cent. in Northern Ireland. He is sorry that he cannot forecast in detail how orders will be placed in future years, but at present this equipment is not produced in any great quantities in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Aycliffe. Firms in these areas get the benefit of the Government's preferential scheme for development districts, and we hope they will take increasing advantage of it.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that if the share-out were based on the use by Scotland of telephones Scotland would get 10 per cent. of this particular share out? Does he further realise that if it were based on Scotland's unemployed population the amount would be 20 per cent? Is it not shameful, therefore, to say to Scotland, with its 100,000 workless, its idle factories, and capable management, "All you are going to receive is 1½ per cent."? Is not this a miserable way to treat Scotland? Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this and at least give Scotland a fair share of his Department's orders?

While I sympathise completely with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, the fact of the matter is that there are very few firms in Scotland which make telecommunications equipment. As I said earlier, a preferential scheme operates, and wherever a firm decides to move under the preferential treatment arrangements and decides to offer facilities to build telecommunications equipment, then naturally we will look very seriously at its application

Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to the figures which he has just given? Does he realise that the figures he has just given are a complete contradiction of the impression which the Minister tried to convey when winding up the debate last Wednesday? In that debate his right hon. Friend—[Hon. Members: "Speech."]—tried to convey the impression that in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and in the North-East we should benefit considerably from this new investment programme. Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to how he has misled the House in this respect?

I do not see that my right hon. Friend has misled the House at all. In fact, there is no reason at all why development areas should not get a large amount in the future, providing the factories are there; but we cannot issue contracts unless there are people engaged there who are prepared to develop. For instance, there is a particular factory which is in course of construction in Aycliffe. If this particular factory decides to produce telecommunications equipment, we will obviously consider very seriously its application and whether we can give it some work, but unless it can offer such facilities we can do very little about it.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will give a list of the firms to which he has allocated contracts for telephone equipment in the last five years; what was the value of the respective contracts with the respective firms; and where the firms are situated.

My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot readily provide this information, which would take some time to compile. We have available, however, a break-down of Post Office orders in 1962–63 for cable, loading coils, telephone apparatus and exchange equipment which, with permission, my right hon. Friend will publish in the Official Report.

Can my hon. Friend indicate what telephone equipment, if any, is purchased from the Prison Commissioners, or their successors in business?

Not without notice.

asked the Postmaster-General what conclusions he has now reached with regard to experimental pay-television services.

I now propose to offer licences for pay-television experiments to the following five groups for a period of three years:

(1) Caledonian Television Ltd. in Penicuik, near Edinburgh, with a possible extension later elsewhere in Scotland.

(2) Choiceview Ltd. in Leicester with the option of an extension in a London area.

(3) Pay-TV Ltd. in

(i) Sheffield.

(ii) Certain London Boroughs, with a start initially in Westminster and Southwark.

(4) Telemeter Programmes Ltd. in

(i) An area in the north of England.

(ii) A London area comprising Merton, Mordern, Mitcham and Wimbledon.

(5) Tolvision Ltd. in

(i) A grouped area encompassing Luton and Bedford, and stretching I should hope into towns in Hertfordshire.

(ii) A London area.

The five companies are entirely independent of each other in control and finance. I hope the areas chosen will help them to develop a variety of approach, as well as covering a good cross-section of the community and forming a reasonably practical basis for an experiment.

The issue of licences will of course be dependent upon the companies accepting its conditions, including the necessary statistical returns for which I shall ask and the devising of adequate safeguards for the legitimate interests of cinema exhibitors in the experimental areas; on this I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development. I shall also need to be satisfied about the structure of each company before I actually issue licences.

I will keep the House informed on the progress of the experiment. I shall put a copy of the licence and other documents in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as they are in their final form.

I shall expect all the companies to start their services within one year from the date of issue of licences.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Is he aware that whilst not opposing this experiment, we are rather surprised that it should get this priority in the future development of broadcasting and television, especially having in mind that it will be a discriminatory medium, which, on cost alone, will squeeze out a number of old-age pensioners, the permanently sick and disabled, and persons in the lower income groups? Has he told all the companies concerned that this is purely an experiment, that a national pay-television service will not automatically follow, that there will be no advertisements on this medium, and that it will also be subject to the code of conduct embodied in the present Television Act? Could he also inform the House how many subscribers will be initially on this medium and, although he is not directly financing, I understand, these five companies or assisting them financially in developing this medium, what will be the cost of the service that he will allow them to use?

I will try briefly to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementry questions. First, people are entirely free to decide whether or not they take pay-television services. The services do not use frequencies of any sort; they are by wire. No advertisements will be allowed. The contractors will operate under the general requirements as regards the code of behaviour set out in Section 3 of the 1954 Television Act. As we said in the White Paper, there could be no guarantee at this stage of a permanent service but we would have to see what sort of television is produced. If it is good and popular television, I have no doubt that Parliament would wish to go further.

While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether he can give an assurance that he will watch as far as possible that these firms do not compete with the normal programmes on either Independent Television or the B.B.C. channel, and that he will try to ensure that they bring to the viewer programmes which they would not otherwise see?

In general, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that the sort of television that will be provided by these companies will be distinctly different from both that of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., and, of course, they will be barred from "hogging" events of national importance for their programmes. I have also made it clear to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. that if they feel that they are being unfairly dealt with regarding this experiment they can always make representations to me.

asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the increasing concentration of newspapers in a few hands and the growing influence on public opinion of a handful of newspaper proprietors, he will introduce legislation to enable him to exercise supervision over the choice of programme contractors for the Independent Television Authority.

No, Sir. We had very full discussion about the Press and television during the debates on the Television Act, 1963. Under that Act I and the Authority have been given powers which will be a sufficient safeguard against the possibility that the existence of newspaper holdings in a programme company might lead to results contrary to the public interest.

Is it right that Beaver-brook Newspapers Ltd. should have any part in the control of a television programme added to its existing circulation and influence on men's minds? Does not the Postmaster-General think that this is a potential threat to democracy and that it should be stopped by law? If not, at least would he have a word in the ear of Lord Hill, the Chairman of the I.T.A.?

We discussed this matter in principle very fully during our debates on the Television Bill a few months ago. Unhappily, the question which the hon. Gentleman asks is not one for me to answer. It is a matter for the Authority to decide where contracts go.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that recent developments in the newspaper world have made it very difficult for us to use the phrase "a free Press" with the confidence with which we used to use it, and will he give further consideration to the proposal made by my hon. Friend?

No. As I say, the House gave the most exhaustive consideration to this subject only a few months ago, and I think that the decisions which we reached were right.

To what extent does the Postmaster-General now exercise supervision over television programmes? Has he exercised any influence over the excellent programme "That Was The Week That Was"? Is he aware that if he told the B.B.C. that this programme should be continued in a General Election year so that politicians could be debunked he would be doing an excellent national service which would be very much appreciated?

That may be true, but the hon. Gentleman is in the wrong shop. This Question refers to the I.T.A., not the B.B.C.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now agreed to the Independent Television Authority's request to be allowed to use a second very high frequency television channel in South Wales to enable viewers in South Wales and the West of England to have their own editions of the Independent Television service next year.

I have agreed in principle that the Authority may transmit on Channel 7 at its St. Hilary Station in South Wales as from the middle of next year. The Authority intends to appoint a programme contractor to serve the whole of Wales and the West of England area and needs this additional channel to provide distinctive Welsh programmes in South Wales at peak viewing hours.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is welcome news, as a temporary expedient, but that the real solution is that the West of England and Wales should be dealt with by separate independent companies? Will he try to make a definite statement on that as soon as possible?

In view of my reply to an earlier question by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) I think I had better be rather circumspect in what I say, but I am sure that the Authority will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many tests for radioactivity in the waters of the Clyde were made during 1962; and what were the results.

Two surveys were made in 1962 in connection with the presence of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines in the Holy Loch. The results showed no increase in radioactivity levels attributable to them.

Besides helping to keep the waters of the Clyde clean, would the hon. Gentleman see what he can do to keep Dunoon clean, in view of the fact that he has some responsibility for Polaris on Clydeside? Is he aware that the most recent vital statistics, published in Scotland yesterday, show that in Dunoon there has been an increase of 400 per cert. since 1961 in the number of illegitimate births, and that that is disturbing the city council very seriously indeed—

Order. I do not relate that matter to the form of radioactivity we are thinking of on the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it is radioactivity or the American activity, but I think it deserves the consideration of the Minister in view of the fact—

Order. The one would be in order on the particular Question, but the other would not. That is the difference.

On a point of order. Are you ruling, Mr. Speaker, that American activity is in order, but the other aspect not?

I am simply ruling that in so far as it related to purity, as against radioactivity, then the hon. Member's supplementary Question was in order, but that the rest of it, as far as I remember it, was not.

Is it not the case that the Minister does have some responsibility for both types of activity? All I ask is that he should get in consultation with the city council and the Americans, with his own representatives to see what can be done to modify this situation.

I am not quite sure how much of that supplementary question I should answer. All I can say is that I am not really responsible for illegitimate births in Dunoon.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what steps he proposes to take to reinforce the Fishery Protection Squadron.

There is no evidence that the squadron is inadequate for its task but if circumstances indicate otherwise the position will be urgently reviewed.

Of course we appreciate the excellent work done by the squadron, but is it not the case that during last summer well over 200 foreign trawlers were fishing off the Yorkshire coast at a time when the fishery protection vessel was off station for a refit? Will my hon. Friend consider extending the cover by the squadron by the use of helicopters and fast patrol vessels?

All these matters are constantly under review. We are pretty widely extended at the moment but I will take account of what my hon. Friend says.

What is the present strength of the squadron in comparison with foreign fishery protection squadrons which have recently been so active in the Scottish fishing grounds?

Our squadron consists of four frigates, four coastal minesweepers and two inshore minesweepers, and, from time to time, two fast patrol boats are deployed. I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question because I am not sure to which other squadrons he is referring.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the first of the Polaris submarines will be laid down, and when she is expected to be launched.

Work on the first Polaris submarine has made a good start and construction is going according to plan. The submarine is expected to be laid down early next year. It is not the practice to give notice well in advance of the dates of launching warships being built for the Royal Navy.

The time taken to construct "Valiant" was a considerable improvement on the time taken to construct "Dreadnought". Will my hon. Friend see that this improvement is continued in the building of the new Polaris submarines?

I hope that we can give that assurance, although Polaris boats are rather more complex than hunter-killers.

asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in developing a suitable telescopic sight for the 7·62 mm. rifle; why the production of a sight has been delayed; and what tests the sight had passed before its use by the Army.

A telescopic sight for the 7·62 mm. rifle has undergone trials to test continuous firing, accuracy and its ability to resist extremes of climate and rough usage. A decision cannot be taken about production until the evaluation of the results has been completed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the War Office has delayed these trials, American troops are almost fully equipped with the telescopic sight and that the same applies to certain Continental countries associated with N.A.T.O.? Why has the War Office been so dilatory in providing what is regarded as modern and essential equipment?

I do not think that we have been dilatory. This project was not high on the priority list because the existing ·303 sniping rifle, although not of the standard N.A.T.O. calibre, was adequate and the requirement for it was extremely small.

We were using telescopic sights in the South African War. Did it not occur to the War Office that, when we got a new rifle, we should require a telescopic sight for it? Why has it taken 12 years to get round to this discovery?

Of course it occurred to us, and that is why we are carrying out tests on it.

Though this is the first time this matter has been ventilated in the House, may I have an assurance that these trials will be expedited and that, if the sight proves to be satisfactory, our troops will be provided with it as early as possible?

We hope that, once the trials are completed, the Army will begin to receive the sights about 18 months later.

asked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been arrived at in consultation with the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes with regard to the future of the former Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes club in Colchester.

As my hon. Friend was told in the letter my office sent him on 16th September, this club was built by the N.A.A.F.I. on land within the garrison area leased from the War Department in 1946. N.A.A.F.I. has since ceased to run the club and the building is now unused. The Army could use this building in the short term and we are negotiating with the N.A.A.F.I. for the termination of the lease.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that these large and valuable premises have now been empty and idle for over two and a half years? Can he tell us the cause of the hold-up and why they have been kept so long without being utilised for any purpose, either military or civil?

We are negotiating with the N.A.A.F.I. a suitable price on which we could take them over. The difficulty of turning these buildings over to civilian use is that they are in the middle of barracks.

But what is the hold-up? Why have not the N.A.A.F.I. and the War Office been able to sort out this matter in two and a half years?

We have not been able to agree on a price.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is still his intention to close down the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey; and what plans he his to ensure that this factory, which is situated in an area scheduled under the Local Employment Act, is used to provide employment for the workers who would be rendered redundant by its closure.

As my right hon. Friend explained to the right hon. Gentleman in his letter of 2nd December, we expect the factory to close at the end of next year. Some of our employees have already found new jobs in the area, and others will no doubt do so during the coming months. I regret that we cannot ensure that the factory will continue to provide employment after we have vacated it, but we intend to offer it for sale at about the time it closes, and we shall do everything possible to interest prospective purchasers who might use the property productively.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, of the 450 men now left but who will be without a job at the end of next year, more than half are over 50, each with at least a quarter of a century's service to the nation in war and peace? Does his Department not accept full responsibility for providing alternative employment? Is he aware that this site is the most important and valuable in Carmarthen County? Will he consult the Board of Trade as to whether the factory, with all its services, could be used as a trading estate?

We are aware of the obligation towards our employees and we will do all we can to ensure that they are found jobs. We are already in touch with the Board of Trade and with the other Government Departments concerned. But this factory has to be decontaminated before it can be used for any other purpose.

This closure, I gather, is in addition to the closure of Woolwich and of other ordnance factories. In view of the state of equipment, particularly the artillery—which is, in the main, equipped with last war or even pre last war designs—the Army will be extremely surprised to hear that what we are suffering from, and have been suffering from, is an excess of capacity.

They may be surprised to hear it but it is true.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of neighbouring communities, including the hard-hit town of Kidwelly, will be seriously affected by the closure and that there is no alternative work in the area, which is scheduled under the Local Employment Act? Will his Department at least treat this matter as one of urgency?

We are treating it very seriously. The employment position in the area has improved over the last few months and we hope that it will be possible to provide alternative employment for these people.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the importance of this matter to the County of Carmarthen and my constituency, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now set up a single negotiating body for the probation service; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State hope very soon to begin discussions with the interested parties about the Morison Committee's recommendation that there should be a single negotiating body for the probation service in Great Britain.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State, in reply to Questions earlier this year, said that consultations would be held as soon as a settlement of salaries for Scottish probation officers had been achieved? This settlement was reached and this is a matter of considerable urgency for the probation service. Will she conclude the negotiations as quickly as possible?

Yes, Sir. But the newly agreed salaries will not come into operation altogether until the end of 1964, and therefore this temporary delay will not affect anyone.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the procedure adopted when objections are lodged to railway closures under the Beeching plan; in particular, who hears and determines the objection; whether the objectors are allowed to be present in person and/or to be represented by solicitors or counsel; and whether they may adduce written and oral evidence, cross-examine, and address the tribunal.

Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, provides that, when a passenger closure is proposed, users may lodge objections with the appropriate area transport users consultative committee. The committee is required to consider the objections and report to my right hon. Friend on the hardship it considers will be caused by the proposed closure. In the light of its report and of any other relevant factors my right hon. Friend decides whether the closure should take place. Objectors can submit written evidence and can attend and speak at any meeting held by the committee to hear representations. They can, if they wish, be professionally represented at such meetings, which must be held in public. In general, the committee determines its own procedure but I understand that it allows objectors and their representatives reasonable latitude in the manner in which they present their case. This includes making statements and asking questions relevant to the matters within the scope of the committee's functions.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is not a matter to be treated with levity and that these closures deprive hundreds of Scottish citizens of long-standing and cherished business and social contacts and ought not to be made without there being the proper opportunity to have them considered judicially—presenting the evidence and having the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses—and generally treating the matter as a serious social problem? Will he take steps to see that justice is done by readjusting the present procedure?

I can assure the hon. and learned Member that there is no disposition whatever to treat this matter with levity, I also point out that, until the Transport Act, 1962, users had no means of objecting to any rail closure, whereas the Government then gave them for the first time a statutory right to lodge objections to passenger rail closures. We are quite satisfied that these committees are properly conducted.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give instructions for these consultative committees to be given professional assistance and for a full transcript of their proceedings to be made available? Is it not quite wrong that I should not be able to have a verbatim record of what passes in the objections made by many hundreds of my constituents about the closure of railway services to which they attach great importance?

That is a slightly different matter from the Question, but I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Why cannot these committees be given the most important bit of information which they require? The most relevant question is how much money a line is losing. This the committees are not allowed to know. Why cannot we know how much is being lost and how much would have to be made up for a line to be kept open?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Under the Act the committees are concerned with reporting to the Minister on hardship and on proposals to alleviate it. Hardship is normally shown by the evidence of the objectors. Other questions are considered by my right hon. Friend at the same time as he considers a committee's report on hardship.

In view of the very great importance of this matter, I give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.