asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what legal proceedings have been taken, or are to be taken, as the result of the Gomes Report on Corruption in Trinidad.

None, Sir. The responsibility in such matters rests with the Attorney-General of Trinidad, and he decided against prosecution.

Is the Minister satisfied that in all cases there are no grounds for prosecution in view of what is contained in the Gomes Report?

I have nothing to add to my reply. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) on 22nd April, 1953, which has further information on the point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the construction of the Caura Dam in Trinidad; how much work still remains to be done; when it will be completed; and what is the cost to date.

There has been no progress since 1948 when, as my right hon. Friend explained on the 29th April, 1953, the dam was placed on care and maintenance. The completion of the dam, which it is estimated will cost about £1½ million and take about four years, is included in the Colony's development proposals for the period 1956–60. The cost so far has been about £600,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with all the delay that has taken place in the construction of this dam and, in view of the economic advantages which would derive from its completion, will he ask his right hon. Friend to have another look at the matter to see whether the work can be speeded up?

I am very well aware of the importance of completing the dam. It was at one time hoped to complete it in the Colony's five-year economic programme ending in 1955, but owing to the urgent need for water it has been decided to concentrate on other schemes giving a quicker return for the money expended, and it is in the programme for the period 1956–60.

But surely the Minister recognises that the completion of this and other schemes in this territory would do far more to satisfy the inhabitants than the actions recently taken by his right hon. Friend in British Honduras and British Guiana?

I do not know what the reference is to British Honduras. In all these territories we must put first things first.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the hardship caused to families in Kenya when the breadwinner is detained indefinitely; and what steps are being taken to deal with a problem which is causing bitterness of feeling among, those concerned.

I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on 14th April to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). My right hon. Friend is not aware of any general hardship among families of detained persons, but there are arrangements for relief to be given in cases of need.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these measures are fully known to the people concerned? While it is admitted that the great majority can go back to the reserve, there are individuals who cannot. What steps are taken to make it clear to those who are not able to find other means of subsistence that some welfare arrangements are available?

I hope that the publicity given to this matter by Parliamentary Questions will help to make it better known in Kenya, but I will see that the attention of the Government is drawn to this point and that it is made as clear as possible to everybody what arrangements there are for relief.

Can the Minister of State tell us the numbers detained in connection with operation "Anvil" and the conditions under which they are detained?

That is another question.

Cannot the Minister tell us what he is doing about those detainees who have been in camps since as far back as December, 1952? Does he intend to review their sentences at any time and possibly, especially with trade union leaders, release them to return once more to their normal life and activities among their own people?

That is a different question. The hon. Gentleman had better put it down.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the request by Mr. Ohanga that senior chiefs and senior African leaders should be included in screening teams in Kenya; and what response has been made to it.

Senior African leaders and loyalists have been included in screening teams since their inception. Senior chiefs have not been included, however, as they are fully occupied in administering their locations, but their advice is sought when team members are being selected.

Is the Minister aware that Mr. Ohanga is presumably also fully informed of this fact but nevertheless feels that in certain circumstances senior chiefs, through their great knowledge of the background of people being screened, might be able to obtain more information through the screening process than can be obtained by the European officers who are normally employed?

Of course, I am aware of Mr. Ohanga's suggestion, but I do not know whether he really considered its implications when he made it in that it might mean taking senior chiefs away from their locations. African leaders who are very carefully selected are members of the screening teams.

While appreciating that, may I ask the Minister if he will consult with his right hon. Friend? This is a very important suggestion. I think that it ought to be considered and not turned down. If the chiefs can be spared for the work that will give clearer proof that the work is being done fairly.

I thought that I had made it clear that we are associating picked African leaders and loyalists with these teams. The most important thing is to allow the chiefs to do their own work of running the locations.

On a point of order. My hon. Friend has not been here to ask this Question. I put down a Private Notice Question yesterday which was not accepted because my hon. Friend intended to ask this Question. I realise that unavoidable circumstances have made it impossible for him to be here. This is a matter of importance to people on both sides of the House, and I should have thought that the Minister of State himself would have liked to volunteer a statement so that he might show what is being done in this important matter.

I have to assume that when an hon. Member puts a Question on the Order Paper he will be here to ask it. As the Question covered the same ground as the right hon. Gentleman's Question, I had to disallow his Private Notice Question.

May we, through you, ask the Minister whether, on a matter of this importance, he does not think it wise to ask for your permission to make a statement at the end of Questions?

As a matter of fact, I anticipated that from a Question put to me by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) as to what would happen if he were not present, and I have already given my approval to the Minister to answer this Question at the end of Questions if he so desires.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the Governor of Kenya has forbidden the circulation of the book entitled, "Struggle for Kenya," by D. H. Rawcliffe.

I am informed that the circulation of this book has been prohibited in the public interest. This is within the Governor's powers, and I do not propose to intervene.

Can the Minister of State tell us the objection to this book? Is it regarded as seditious, and, if so, why was the author not prosecuted? If it is not seditious, are we to take it that it is the policy of the Kenya Government to ban the circulation of any books that are not favourable to the Kenya Government?

Under the Kenya Penal Code, the Governor in Council, if he is of opinion that the importation of any publication would be contrary to the public interest, may in his absolute discretion by order prohibit the importation of that publication. I have looked through this book myself and I am certain that there are passages in it, indeed chapters, which would be calculated to inflame public opinion and racial relations in Kenya under present circumstances.

Are we to take it, then, that the Minister of State is saying that, because this book contains a considerable and well-documented criticism of the colour bar in Kenya, the Kenya Government are justified in banning the book?

The hon. Gentleman has no right to make any such assumption.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all right-minded people will be only too glad to know that the Kenya Government are stopping the circulation of subversive literature which is adding to the bloodshed in Kenya?

Is the Minister of State also proposing to ban the recent report of the Parliamentary delegation to Kenya which takes the same view as many sections of this book?

Answer.

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

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ships at present undergoing conversion in the Royal dockyards and private yards.

I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the conversions of destroyers to antisubmarine frigates, of which four are at present in hand in the Royal dockyards and nine in private yards.

While congratulating the Royal Naval dockyards on their obvious success in these difficult conversions, may I ask whether the attention of the First Lord has been drawn to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the cost of the work carried out in private yards, and will he in future take steps to increase the amount of conversions carried out in Royal Naval dockyards instead of giving the work to private yards?

I have read the Report and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we always give the work to the Royal dock yards as far as possible, but they are extremely busy with the refit of ships and are fully employed at the moment. Our policy is to see that the Royal dockyards are fully employed, and when they have room for work of this kind, it will be given to them.

What is the First Lord doing to get the price in the private yards down to the price in the Royal yards?

That is a point which really arises on the following Question. As the Parliamentary Secretary informed the House a fortnight ago, we are in constant and full consultation with the Ship Repairers Council to see if we can get these prices down, but I must say that the Royal dockyards have had some advantage in that they were able to buy materials in bulk earlier. [HON. MEM BERS: "Hear, hear."] Since then, owing to the rise in the cost of coal and other commodities, the price of materials has gone up.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least express pleasure that the Royal dockyards have done so much better than private dockyards?

I accept gladly that tribute, and later on, on the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), I have my own tribute to pay to the work done by the Royal dockyards.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what proportion of the work of conversion of ships in private yards a price has been, or will be, fixed not later than halfway through the conversion.

In no instance has it yet been possible to fix a price by the halfway stage of the job. It will, how ever, remain the Admiralty's policy to endeavour to agree a price at the earliest possible stage in the progress of the work.

In view of the fact that according to the Comptroller and Auditor General the work carried out in private yards costs anything up to 50 per cent, more than that carried out in the Royal dockyards, and in view of the fact that the Royal Naval dockyards have always been used as a check on the cost of work done in private yards, why is it that it is not now possible to fix prices for work done in private yards based on the cost of that carried out in the Royal Naval dockyards?

While a fixed price would be desirable from the point of view of the Admiralty, it is not easy to arrange because, until a ship is opened up, it is difficult for the yards to see how great will be the amount of repair work needed. As I said in answer to the previous Question, I am in constant consultation with the Ship Repairers Council to see if we can get these prices fixed at an earlier stage than they are fixed today.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider granting a bonus to the workers in Her Majesty's dockyard, in view of the fact that the Auditor General reports that the work carried out in Her Majesty's dockyard was 50 per cent, cheaper than work carried out by civilian contractors.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's recent report on the comparative cost of certain work per formed in the dockyards and similar work done by private contractors is greatly to the credit of the management and men of the Royal Yards. But I do not think it could appropriately be made the occasion for a bonus to the Admiralty employees concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that one civilian 'firm, Messrs. Cammell Laird, gave one week's extra pay to all their employees, and will he do something for the workers in H.M. dockyards for their very fine work in saving 50 per cent, of the cost?

The conditions of employment in the Royal dockyards and in shipyards are really somewhat different, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, and I have already given and will not now repeat some of the reasons for these differences. If I repeat my congratulations to the Royal dockyards, that does not call for the step which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

In view of the Socialistic question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) and the Socialistic statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, cannot the right hon. Gentle man come to the rescue of his hon. and gallant Friend and help him to hold the seat in the interests of anti-Socialism?

As my right hon. Friend wants to give the dockyard workers credit, would he consider the possibility of put ting more work in the Royal dockyards and so give the workers there the opportunity of earning more money, because it would appear that, even with overtime rates, the Royal dockyards will still be cheaper than some private firms?

I do not know if my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I answered an earlier Question, but I made it clear that the Royal dockyards have been used to full capacity and are likely to be used to full capacity for many years to come.

In view of the fact that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

"Admiralty inquiries have established that materials costs were not a major cause of the higher cost of contract work,"

We are investigating, in consultation with the Ship Repairers Council, the possibility of getting a price at an earlier stage, but, for the reasons given in my answer to a previous Question, a fixed price for repairs is very difficult for this Government, as it was for our predecessors, to secure.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Aircraft Carrier "Melbourne" will be completed; and if he will give an assurance that the cost of building will be fully borne by the Australian Government, and that it is still their intention to take her over on completion.

I expect that this ship will be completed and handed over to the Royal Australian Navy in the latter half of next year. No change has been made or suggested in the general financial arrangements agreed by the previous Administration and described in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Navy Appropriation Account, 1948–49.

Has the First Lord had any approaches made to him by the Australian Government in view of the change in their Defence policy, under which they are to abolish the Fleet Air Arm?

None whatsoever. As far as I know, the matter rests exactly as it did.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what consultations he had with the Australian Government before their announcement of a radical change in naval policy.

The composition of the Royal Australian Navy is a matter for Her Majesty's Government in Australia to determine. There is, of course, the closest consultation between the Admiralty and the Australian Commonwealth Navy Board regarding the employment of the two Navies.

Does not the change in the naval policy of Australia affect Commonwealth defence policy, and has not the First Lord made representations to the Australian Government? Has he had no contact with them on this matter?

As I said in my original reply to the hon. Gentleman, we are in constant consultation with the Royal Australian Navy on the question of the employment of the Navy. I repeat that, so far as this decision is concerned, it is not really a radical change in naval policy but one of adjustment in their general defence policy. It is the constitutional right of Her Majesty's Government in Australia to take such a decision.

Whilst recognising that it is the right of the Australian Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered what additional impact this will have upon British defence policy if, indeed, the Australian Government are changing the shape of their own defence policy, and what conclusions has he come to?

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the full statement he will see that it is a general statement on defence from the Australian point of view. It is not really a radical change. I do not think it will make a very great difference to the Commonwealth policy in general and, as I have said, the Australian Government have a constitutional right to make this change.

Can we take it, then, that if a proposal is made to abolish the Fleet Air Ann in that country, the First Lord will not regard it as a radical change?

It is not abolition; it is the building up of their Air Force and the cutting down of their Naval Air Arm. That does not justify the statement of the hon. Gentleman that this is a radical change.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, to any convenient date, how many ratings have applied for discharge by purchase as a result of the concessions recently announced by his Department; and how many in consequence have since been granted their discharge.

Forty-two applications under the revised orders have been received. I should point out that it will not be possible to approve the first applications immediately; it has been made clear to the Fleet that we must give time for applications to come in from the whole Fleet in order that they may be put in a fair order of priority. Compassionate cases continue, of course, to be dealt with immediately as before and 61 ratings have been granted compassionate discharge during the period under review.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, to any convenient date, how many officers have applied for premature retirement as a result of the concessions recently announced by his Department; and how many in consequence have been given permission to retire.

Eighteen applications have been made since the recent announcement, of which so far five have been granted.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the derequisitioning of land at Gravesend Airport.

Action is going ahead in accordance with the letter my noble Friend sent the hon. Member last month.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was not very much action going ahead? Can we have some idea of when this land will be free from the grip of the Air Ministry, which has held on to it in dog-in-the-manger fashion since the end of the war?

The hon. Member will know that there is on this land a hangar, which we have now put up for competitive tender. Directly that has been disposed of, the land can be derequisitioned.

asked the Under secretary of State for Air how many Royal Air Force jet aircraft have been totally damaged by accident over the two years to the most recent convenient date; if he will state the number of accidents in each of the three main categories of accidents; and how many accidents are held to have been caused by the disintegration of the engine.

In the two years ended 28th February, 1954, 416 Royal Air Force jet aircraft were totally destroyed in crashes. It would be contrary to the established practice of successive Governments over a long period to publish an analysis of the causes of these accidents, but I can say that only a very few were caused by disintegration of the engine.

Can the Under-Secretary say how this rate compares with that for piston-engined aircraft of a comparable type?

I think I gave the figures to the House recently, and, of course, they compare very favourably indeed, but the question of the disintegration of the engine does not come into it.

As the hon. Gentleman is now saying that he gave some figures a short time ago, why cannot he give some closer idea of the number of these accidents caused by engine disintegration?

What I gave was a comparison between the fatal accident rates for jet aircraft and piston-engined air craft. The House will remember that I said then that the fatal jet accident rate was about half the fatal accident rate of the Spitfire.

The Question deals with the disintegration of engines. Will the Under-Secretary give instructions to the Royal Air Force establishment at Farnborough for research on disintegration of jet engines to have priority?

As I have said, the number of accidents caused by disintegration of jet engines is very small indeed.

asked the Under secretary of State for Air whether the court of inquiry into conditions at Wahnerheide is being held in public; whether the result will be made public; whether evidence will be heard from former Royal Air Force personnel who served at the camp; and by whom and where the inquiry is being conducted.

Courts of inquiry under the Air Force Act are not held in public, nor are their proceedings published. This is to ensure that all concerned can speak freely and, if need be, criticise fearlessly. This particular court of inquiry is being held in Germany. The President is a group captain, and the members a wing commander and a flight lieutenant. Evidence is being taken from members of the Royal Air Force who are, or have been, responsible for the unit or on duty there. I propose to make a statement on this whole matter when it is no longer sub judice.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions which have given rise to this inquiry have been going on at this place for a number of years, and will he try to take evidence from people who were present at this detention barracks when they were in the Services but who are now civilians and can there fore speak freely, and who may be able to make a contribution to this matter?

Of course, we took evidence from members of the staff and others who were there at the time, but evidence from ex-prisoners was covered by the courts-martial which were recently held.

If I send the hon. Gentleman evidence from a person who is now a civilian but who was on the staff at that station two years ago, will be give it consideration?

Certainly.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number and percentage of accidents on zebra crossings for the quarter ended 31st March last.

The information required by the hon. and gallant Member is not yet available; I will send it to him as soon as I can.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the general figures giving the accidents for the quarter ended 31st March are already available? Have they yet been analysed, and if so can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the degree of security for pedestrians on zebra crossings is improved or is getting worse?

I have already said that the figures have not yet been analysed. They will be analysed in the middle of May. I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman the analysis.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what has been the number and type of accidents on the North Circular Road, from Staples Corner to Neasden Circus, since the installation of traffic lights along that road; and if he will give similar information with regard to accidents on the same road for the corresponding previous period.

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Do the figures disclose a diminution in the number of accidents?

Yes, Sir. The figures are extremely satisfactory. From 23rd September, 1952, to 22nd March, 1953, the number of accidents was 22. In the subsequent comparable period the figure fell to nine.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what has been the result of his consideration of proposals to relieve congestion in London.

I dealt with this matter rather fully in my speech in the Adjournment debate on 15th April, and I have nothing further to add.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he had nothing to state on that occasion? The hon. Gentleman has not given the House any information of what is being done to relieve traffic congestion in London. He said that consideration was being given to it. Can he tell us the nature of the consideration? Did not the Easter traffic indicate the urgency that something should be done?

I made as full a statement as it was possible for me to do in the somewhat limited time available. The hon. Member will remember that he himself made the longest speech in that debate.

Will my hon. Friend communicate with the British Transport Commission and ask them if they will suggest to bus drivers and to drivers of other public service vehicles that they should not close up on zebra crossings and so become stationary, impeding the natural flow of pedestrians? That is happening at many places in London.

I will certainly consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether his right hon. Friend is taking the London traffic problem at all seriously? Is he aware that when I asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider outstanding London cases, for example Hyde Park Corner, all he did was to make a contemptuous reference to London as if it deserved no consideration at all? Will he try to reconcile his right hon. Friend to the fact that London exists and does require attention?

The right hon. Gentle man has been Minister of Transport and is aware that my right hon. Friend is the Traffic Authority. My right hon. Friend gives a great deal of time to this matter, which requires very careful consideration. He is trying to deal with a problem which none of his predecessors have been able to deal with. With regard to Hyde Park Corner, I answered a Question on that subject recently and said that I did not think it was one of the cases in London which required priority treatment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within a week of the Minister's scorning of the Hyde Park Corner suggestion there was a terrible bus accident at Hyde Park Corner?

That accident was not due to Hyde Park Corner but to the negligence of the driver.^*

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will consider the installation of traffic lights at Chichele Road, N.W.2, where it is crossed by Anson Road.

Those roads are the responsibility of the Willesden Borough ^* See Question No. 45, 5th May, 1954, Vol. 527, c. 362 Council who have made no application to us for the erection of traffic lights. I understand, however, that warning signs are to be erected on the approaches to this junction.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this crossing, which was already very dangerous, has been made more dangerous as the result of the provision of a school at one side and of a municipal public hall on the other in the last three years? Without representations being made to him by Willesden Borough Council, will the hon. Gentleman accept the representations that are now made to him by the hon. Member for Willesden, East?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises that the local authority has statutory responsibility for putting up these signs.