asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant licences to shipbuilders in this country to build ships for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics similar to the 10 cargo vessels of 5,000 tons each ordered by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from France.

Certainly, I would grant licences for such ships, but I know of no such order negotiated by British shipbuilders.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in British shipyards that the stringent application of the strategic goods order in this country and the rather looser application of such rules in continental shipyards is putting British shipyards at a disadvantage? Can he say whether there is any justification for that concern?

I have no evidence of that. Our rules are pretty generous. I have no evidence that our shipyards are being penalised in this way, but I have received no request for licences.

Can the First Lord explain why it is that other N.A.T.O. countries with whom we are associated can accept such orders from the Soviet Union while British shipbuilders are prevented from accepting them?

The point I made, and which I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, is that we have not yet been offered them.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to be evasive. It seems that there is some evasion in this matter, perhaps unwitting. On the assumption that British shipbuilders had the opportunity of tendering for the construction of vessels for the Soviet Union, would any exception be taken by the Admiralty?

Only on strategic grounds. There is another Question on the Paper dealing with this point.

Is it not a fact that these restrictions are tighter in this country than in certain other countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? My second question is perhaps more important. Is it not a fact that even within the present strategic restrictions permitted by the Government, shipbuilders are deliberately boycotting Soviet orders?

I have no evidence of it. I can only say that I have not received any applications.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) why British shipyards are not permitted to accept orders from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for merchant ships with a speed of over 12 knots;

There are no such prohibitions.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the speech made in Manchester recently by the Soviet Ambassador in which he made this allegation, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the position is made clear to the Soviet Trade Mission here?

Certainly. I have not seen the report of the speech which the hon. and learned Member mentions, but I will look it up. I hope that my answer will be a sufficient reply.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I asked him whether the Admiralty was running a small private strategic list of its own, in contradistinction to that of the Board of Trade, he denied the existence of such a list? Is he aware that, apart from one shipbuilder in Newport whose contracts have been turned down by the Admiralty on strategic grounds, for the rest Admiralty officials have actually been pressing shipbuilders in this country to take Soviet orders, as I have been informed by the Board of Trade, and that it is the shipbuilders themselves who are refusing to take these large orders?

I was unaware of what the right hon. Member tells me. My knowledge does not lead me to believe that shipbuilders are not anxious to have these orders. My position is that I have not received any request for licences.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has added urgency by reason of the lack of forward orders to be executed in the shipyards next year and the following years? On account of that, the shipyards may in those years be threatened with grave unemployment, particularly the Scottish shipyards.

Yes, and although the immediate future is not as bad as some rumours have it, I am watching the future and am by no means complacent about it. Orders like these will be a great help.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty which categories of vessels, contained in the list given by the Foreign Trade Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to British businessmen in February last, a copy of which is in his possession, may now be ordered from British shipyards.

Provided they do not incorporate any features of special military importance, all types of ship on that list may be supplied except tankers, whaling factories, whale catchers and floating docks.

On what ground is a whale catcher regarded as a strategic vessel?

It is capable of conversion to an anti-submarine vessel or a mine layer.

In view of the confusion which obtains on this question about what shipbuilders can and cannot do, will not the right hon. Gentleman call the shipbuilders together? In view of the fact that in the recent wage claims they said they could not give higher wages because their order books were so short, will the right hon. Gentleman bring to their attention the fact that there are these orders waiting for them in the Soviet Union which the Government are prepared to accept?

I do not know if they are waiting for orders, but I will certainly take an opportunity of meeting the shipbuilders and will have this matter put on the agenda for discussion.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the decline in shipbuilding orders on Clydeside; if he is further aware that not more than 50,000 tons of new orders have been booked this year, and that the cancellation of an order for two new tankers to be built by Messrs. John Brown practically wipes out this total; and what steps he is taking to arrest this decline in order to bring a good New Year to the Clyde.

I am aware that the rate at which orders for new merchant ships are being placed on the Clyde is at present well below the current rate of output from the shipyards and that some orders placed in 1951 and 1952 have been cancelled. In spite of this, on 1st October, 1954, the Clyde shipbuilding industry had 81 ships of 620,000 gross tons under construction and orders for 99 ships of 655,000 gross tons on which work is still to be started. I hope that shipbuilders on the Clyde, as elsewhere, will be fortunate in their negotiations for new orders in 1955. My information is that there has been a slight improvement recently in the rate of ordering.

Will the Minister note that in 1951 the number of orders booked on the Clyde amounted to 1,200,000 tons? That was the last year in which the Labour Government were in power. In 1953 the number of orders booked on Clydeside amounted to 100,000 tons. Does not the Minister agree that that is a most serious decline in the bookings of new orders? Will he do his best to watch this very grave tendency and remove whatever barriers exist at present to the booking of new shipbuilding orders?

I think that the figures given for 1951 are hardly unconnected with the Korean war. I think that that played a very large part in the matter. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not complacent about this subject and will certainly watch the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why vessels of the Royal Navy have been instructed to protect five Japanese fishing fleets, manned by Japanese crews, during fishing operations off the Siberian coast next year.

No such instructions have been issued.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the copy of the "Fishing News" which I sent to him? Would he, in consequence of his answer, consult the Foreign Secretary in order to give a categorical denial to the rumour, which has been published and displayed in one of the most responsible of the fishing newspapers? Is he aware that his answer will give a great deal of satisfaction to reasonable people everywhere?

I hope that the answer I have given this morning will be a sufficient denial. Not only have no instructions of this kind been issued, but we do not intend to issue such instructions in the future.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that farmers and landholders at Bower Smerral, Bower Whitegar and Mum, Castletown, all in Caithness, are unable to obtain supplies of electricity from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, due to the high cost of undergrounding the cables to meet the requirements of the Admiralty; and if he will consider meeting the extra cost involved.

The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board applied to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power for his consent to the placing of electric cables above ground for supply of electricity to the areas in question. The Admiralty was obliged to object to this because of the interference to naval wireless installations in the neighbourhood. The question whether or not supply can be made without the use of overground cables is for the Hydro-Electric Board. In such a case as this, where the placing or use of over-ground cables would interfere with the operation of existing installations, there are no grounds for the owners of the existing installations making any contribution towards the additional cost of laying cable underground.

Is it not a fact that there are 48 farmers here who have been waiting for years for light and power, which this House has brought to them under the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Act? Is not the Board only too willing to give them electricity, but for this very essential defence cost of£10,000—which everyone in Caithness realises is right—in order that these cables should be placed underground? The Board cannot stand the cost, which would amount to a substantial sum per head. Is it not reasonable that the Admiralty should assume this defence cost?

I am sorry that I am unable to help my hon. Friend in my answer today. The cost is very great indeed. This is not the only case. Although I am prepared to discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, I cannot hold out much hope that we can come to an agreement satisfactory to my hon. Friend.

Is it not generally agreed that the supply of electricity is most desirable in order to keep farmers on the land and to increase food production, for which there is a very great need? This is clearly a defence cost. Surely the Admiralty ought to meet it.

I will discuss this question once more with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, but this is only one example of what would lead to very great cost indeed on the Service Vote. It is a matter for the Hydro-Electric Board.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the supply would be welcomed by many farmers and that it would lead to a large increase in the production of food?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is taxing people, chosen quite arbitrarily, to pay the costs of his Department, and should he not do something about this?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what answer he gave to the trade union side of the Admiralty Industrial Council of 18th November to the request that discharges should be deferred until the end of the year at the Royal Naval Repair Yard at Belfast; and what steps he is taking to transfer work there to avoid further redundancy and unemployment.

The position remains as described in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) on 27th November.

As there is now redundancy at the Royal Naval Repair Yard in Belfast and there is considerable unemployment amongst engineers in Belfast and Northern Ireland generally, particularly in Newry and Larne, will the right hon. Gentleman approach other Government Departments to ensure that work is allocated to Northern Ireland? Will he also see that some of the work is transferred from other dockyards to Belfast in order to give employment to these highly skilled workers?

I cannot give a definite promise on that last point, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Government Departments concerned are constantly in touch on this problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland, which we know is serious. I am sorry that these men had to leave this yard, but the work was not there. After all, only 5 per cent. of the men employed in the yard were found to be redundant.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have taken this matter up with the Admiralty on several occasions since 17th November? Is he also aware that, while I welcome help in this matter from hon. Members on the Opposition benches and, indeed, from any quarter, most of the people concerned are my constituents?

In view of the very alarming high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman say what conversations he has had with the Home Secretary who has special responsibility for Northern Ireland in connection with this matter?

The Home Secretary is the person who calls us together. I have been in touch with the Ministers concerned, and of course our officials in the various Departments are in touch with each other on the subject. It is being very closely watched.

I have no doubt that the contracts are extremely valuable, but may we know the outcome of the contracts? So far, it has meant increasing unemployment in Northern Ireland, and in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's own particular responsibility unemployment came at a very unhappy time of the year, towards Christmas and the New Year. It seems to me that the contacts that have been made have not produced very good results.

We are placed in a very great difficulty. I am sorry that these redundancies have occurred at this time of the year, but the work was not there and could not be found for these people. The employers were hardly justified in keeping this small 5 per cent. of the total number of workers.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cases of sabotage have occurred in each of the past three years; and in how many cases the culprits have not been discovered.

If by sabotage is meant acts intended to assist a foreign Power by harming the State, there is no evidence to suggest that any such incidents have occurred in the Royal Navy during the past three years. In 1952 there were 12 cases of malicious damage; in 1953, 33; and in 1954, 40. The culprit was not discovered in 12, 25 and 27 cases in each of these years respectively.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the deplorable increase of malicious damage, which is what I mean by sabotage, Shows that morale is in a very bad way in the Navy and worse than it has been for years past? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that further evidence of this poor morale is to be found in the disastrous fall in recruiting and the desire of certain personnel to get out of the Service as soon as possible? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to stop the rot?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement about morale in the Navy. I think the House would be glad to hear that over half of the cases of malicious damage during the last year took place in the first quarter of the year and the numbers are now declining very steeply. That, I hope, is due to certain steps taken by the Admiralty in the early part of the year, to increases in pay, the general service commission scheme, the sea-going local overseas allowance and the reopening of discharge by purchase.

Whether the First Lord accepts my hon. and gallant Friend's strictures or not, is it not the case that very responsible people, including my hon. and gallant Friend, believe that there is a decline in morale in the Royal Navy at present and that it is due to the failure to give the Navy a rôle to fulfil? Will he please direct his attention to that?

I hope that the hon. Member read a speech which I made on that very point a fortnight ago. There will be plenty of opportunities shortly to make more speeches on the subject.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically the Royal Navy. May I assume that he intended to cover the Royal Dockyards, too?

Yes.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment at an early date.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent his technical advisers have studied the design of aircraft carriers built for the United States Navy; and what account he takes of such designs in assessing design requirements for aircraft carriers for the British Navy.

My technical advisers keep in close touch with those of the United States. Frequent discussions take place, and the development and design of aircraft carriers and their equipment takes account of the best features available from either Navy within the limits of the resources available.

Would the Minister tell us whether his technical advisers have studied the design of the latest aircraft carrier built in the U.S.A., which is estimated to have cost£70 million? Can he give an assurance that he will not adopt any such design as that? Can he also inform us whether Lord Montgomery has been authorised to conduct any negotiations on behalf of the Admiralty? Has he seen the argument between Lord Montgomery and the American Secretary of State for the Navy? Can he give us some enlightenment about this controversy which is raging in America?

I do not propose to tell the hon. Member what our building programme is The Estimates will tell him. I think I can fairly safely give an assurance that we are not likely to build carriers such as the one which he has mentioned, the "Forrestal," but in our carrier programme we are in the forefront of all countries, both in development and design, I am glad to say. Costly though the "Forrestal" was—and we had not to pay for it—I am glad to say that it included such British developments as the angled flight deck and the mirror deck-landing device. Turning to the second part of the Question, Lord Montgomery was not speaking for the British Navy, as the hon. Member will have realised. He was answered very thoroughly by my opposite number in the United States, and I myself answered him the other day.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) how many days the "Britannia" is to be away from port during her forthcoming visit to Caribbean waters; how many officers and men will be on board; what will be their pay for this period; what is the cost of their maintenance; what is the cost of fuel; and what he estimates to be the total cost of this voyage;

Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia" is to leave Portsmouth on 18th January; she will arrive at Gibraltar on the return journey from the Caribbean on 8th March. Twenty-two officers and 249 ratings will be on board. Their pay during the period will amount to£16,000 and the cost of their maintenance will be£2,900. It is estimated that the fuel used will cost between£10,000 and£11,000. The Royal Yacht is expected to stay in the Mediterranean until about 26th March. Her Majesty's instructions for the yacht's subsequent programme have not yet been received.

Is the Minister aware that the House is not as enthusiastic about the very great expenditure on this vessel as he has suggested? Is he aware that, in addition to the "Britannia" going to the Caribbean, a strato-cruiser aircraft has been chartered at an enormous cost? Does he not think that this expenditure needs to be thoroughly scrutinised with a view to saving the taxpayers' money?

The question about the aircraft is one affecting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in connection with a tour to which I know the Colonial Office attaches the greatest importance. To send out the yacht on this occasion is considerably cheaper than chartering another suitable ship, which would have been necessary had the yacht itself not been available.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the officers and men of the Royal Navy will welcome any opportunity to go to sea—and that this is a good opportunity—and that I shall be very content if they will take the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) with them?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General in what year it was first authorised that£3 could be with- drawn on demand from the Post Office Savings Bank; what that amount is worth on present-day values; and if he will give consideration to increasing the amount that can be withdrawn on demand.

The limit of£3 was authorised in 1929. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that its equivalent in purchasing power today is about£6 13s. We shall continue to review the limit from time to time. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that before the war books had to be surrendered after every demand withdrawal.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) why he does not insist upon some proof of identity before Post Offices cash telegraphic money orders in view of the opportunities for forging and impersonation afforded by the present system;

The essential proof upon which the Post Office relies is the ability of the person presenting a telegraph money order to give correctly and convincingly the name of the sender. This test has served well over very many years, and we have no evidence that it is inadequate. Exhaustive inquiries have been made in the case to which the hon. Member refers, and we are unable to accept the allegation either that the telegrams were incorrectly delivered or that there was any failure to take proper precautions at the time of payment. I regret, therefore, that no compensation can be paid.

As the hon. Member told me in correspondence that he cannot say to whom the telegraph orders were delivered, how can he possibly claim that there was no negligence? Why should we accept a lower standard of proof in a matter like this than that which would be accepted by an ordinary commercial bank? This is a large sum of money; and one could not just walk into a commercial bank and cash an order for£100.

This Post Office practice has been accepted and has proved satisfactory—

It is not satisfactory.

—for many years. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that this case is a somewhat odd one. We are dealing with an Arab seaman—

Who is illiterate.

—and the telegram was delivered, as is usual in such cases, to the ship's officers.

No.

Four months went by before anything whatever was said. It was not until after four months that the matter was raised at all.

If the hon. Member bases his case on the four months' delay, may I ask him whether he is not aware that this Arab seaman is at the moment in Australia, and, because he is illiterate, is having very great difficulty in getting his case across to the Post Office? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that there is some moral obligation on him in that he cannot prove to whom this sum was delivered? He has told me in correspondence, not that it was delivered to the ship's officers, but that he cannot say to whom it was delivered. If the Post Office do not ask to see a seaman's discharge book, which is an elementary precaution, does he not feel that it at least has some moral obligation in this matter?

I have every sympathy with this case. I have looked at it very carefully and sympathetically. The fact is that with this telegraph money order we have followed the normal procedure which we always follow in these cases—that is to deliver to a ship's officer. That was done in this particular case.

In view of the fact that the seaman could only make his mark because he was illiterate, or assumed to be illiterate, was it not a defect on the part of the Post Office not to have asked for proof of identity by asking for his discharge book? If the discharge book had been asked for the man could have probably applied for the money therefore, is not the Post Office at fault to some extent?

No, Sir, I do not think so. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned now with the actual cashing of the money order. That was done and the clerk who cashed the money order satisfied himself, according to the procedure in force for many years, that this was the man entitled to it.

In view of the fact that I have been unable to clear up this matter satisfactorily by correspondence and in view of the unsatisfactory attitude of the hon. Gentleman this morning, I beg to give notice that I must raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the need for a post office in the large and rapidly-growing residential areas of Northfield and Mastrick in Aberdeen; and if he will take immediate steps to rectify this.

Yes, Sir. It is intended to open a sub-post office in each area as soon as there are any shops.

May I be allowed to thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many new telephones were installed in each of the years 1951, 1952 and 1953.

The figures to 30th September of each year are: 1951, 344,000; 1952, 324,000; 1953, 346,000; 1954, 395,000. This 1954 figure is a record, but we plan a substantial further increase next year.

Is the Minister aware that these figures show an increase in production and productivity which compare with those of any other industry in the country and reflect great credit on the highly-skilled engineers who serve him?

I think they do. The difficulty about telephones today is the abnormal demand, about which the hon. Member will be as pleased as I am, for it is a reflection of the general prosperity of the country.

Will the Assistant Postmaster-General see that some of this increased production is applied to Audenshaw and Denton, where nothing seems to be happening?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many telephones were put out of commission in the recent storms and floods; and how many of these have been repaired to the nearest available date.

Rather more than 70,000 telephones were put out of order in the recent storms and floods, over 60,000 of them being in Wales and the South-West of England, and nearly 200 small exchanges were temporarily isolated. All recorded faults arising from storm damage have now been cleared. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the engineering staff who have worked so hard to complete this great task.

Everyone in the House will wish to be associated with that tribute which the Minister has paid to the engineers. Since his answers to this and the last Question show that the Post Office engineers are giving him unstinted and loyal service, will he not now generously reconsider the claim which they are making for a revaluation of their highly-skilled engineering work in the Post Office?

The hon. Member has asked an entirely different question. We have become accustomed to unstinted service from the Post Office engineers over many, many years.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of unsatisfied applications for telephone installations in the Borough of Leyton; the average period for which applicants must wait before service is provided; how many share lines; the number of public kiosks available; and what proportion of these are damaged or put out of action during the year.

One thousand and nineteen applications are outstanding; 984 telephones were connected during the past 12 months. The waiting time varies from place to place in the borough depending on whether lines are available or not, and an average figure cannot be given. One thousand and fifty-six subscribers in the borough share lines. There are 86 kiosks in service; full statistics of damage are not readily available, but 83 instances of glass being broken have been reported since the beginning of the year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this district and in others a number of installations are put out of action obviously quite maliciously? Can he say whether the position is improving or deteriorating?

I think it is getting a litle better, although I would want notice of that question to give full information. There axe a number of cases of malicious acts, but in most parts of the country they are not too serious.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what frequencies have been allocated to the Independent Television Authority.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) on 15th December.

Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask which mobile radio users have had to be transferred for these frequencies to become available?

I cannot say without notice.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when and what changes have been made since 1951 in the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations to permit other bodies than the General Post Office to control and operate radio links.

None, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there are no radio links being rented or operated by personnel other than of the Post Office?

No, Sir. The Postmaster-General is authorised under the Act to issue licences. If the hon. Member would like me to let him have a list of the licences issued, I could probably do so.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Truleigh Hill booster is giving very poor television reception in Brighton and district because the output has been so heavily reduced; and what action he intends to take to ensure that reception is again adequate.

I cannot at present add much to what I said in the Adjournment debate on 16th November. North Hessary Tor has been only just opened. I understand from the British Broadcasting Corporation that the Corporation is conducting tests, but it is too early to say whether it will be possible to increase the power of Truleigh Hill without causing interference with North Hessary Tor.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the best technical advice is that there never was the slightest need for this heavy cut in output, that it was done by the B.B.C. out of sheer spitefulness, that it was a breach of Clause 4 (1) of the B.B.C. licence? Will my hon. Friend consult the Law Officers of the Crown with a view to recommending revocation under Section 23 (2) of the B.B.C.'s Charter?

I do not think my hon. Friend ought to say that it is due to the spitefulness of the B.B.C. After all, the B.B.C. is under the same obligations to serve the people who pay for licences as anyone else would be under those circumstances. What the B.B.C. proposes to do is to see to what extent it is possible to fix the power of Truleigh Hill without messing up an area in Dorset served by North Hessary Tor.

My hon. Friend seems to have overlooked the fact that people in the Brighton area are existing licence fee-payers and are therefore entitled to a service which they are not getting from the B.B.C.

I think my hon. Friend had better suggest to his constituents that they should wait until the B.B.C. has completed all its experiments so as to get the very best service they can until such time as the Rowridge Station in the Isle of Wight—which is to serve them permanently—is working at full power.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General his estimate of the number of owners of broadcasting and of television sets who fail to take out licences; how many are annually prosecuted; and what is the average number of applications for licences in sample areas consequent on the assumption of special investigation in such areas.

No reliable estimate can be given of the number of people using sound receivers or television sets without a licence. Last year about 9,500 people were prosecuted. Investigations were made in many areas during September, October and November, and in this period the number of television licences for the whole country rose by 465,000, while the number of sound licences fell by 93,000. While these investigations have certainly contributed largely to the increase in the number of television licences, other factors have also had an effect, for example, the opening of new television stations and the lifting of hire-purchase restrictions in mid-July.

Can any deduction be drawn from the figures as to the proportion of those owning television or sound-receiving sets who do not have licences?

No, Sir, it is very difficult to draw any reliable deduction from the figures. What we are doing is to increase the services we provide to try to discover and prosecute people who do not take out licences. I think that on the figures I have given the hon. Member and on the figures which, no doubt, he has seen in the Press, we have been increasingly successful in doing that.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to make a statement giving details of the Bristol Sycamore helicopter in Kenya.

I should prefer not to make a statement until after the Christmas Recess.

Would the hon. Gentleman give some reason for that? Is he not aware that the helicopter has been flying and that in the past there has been substantial criticism of the slowness of the Service authority in thinking of the difficult lives the men in Kenya have to lead and who might be helped very much by this form of aircraft?

I know the helicopter in Kenya has made a promising start, but I still think it would be premature to make a statement until we have had greater experience of operating at these heights. I hope to be in Kenya early in January, and I shall make a point of examining the whole of the helicopter question when I am there.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the supply of Hunter and Swift fighter aircraft to the Royal Air Force.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied with the performance of the Swift swept-wing fighter now in squadron service with the Royal Air Force.

Although the initial delivery of Hunters was delayed, we now have substantial numbers of them. Three squadrons in Fighter Command have already received Hunters, and we shall issue the others to squadrons as fast as we can. A small number of the early marks of Swift have been delivered and used to equip one squadron, but acceptance of the later marks has been delayed by the need to solve aerodynamic problems. My noble Friend and I do not conceal our disappointment at the delays which have occurred.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the performance of these Hunters now in service is at least up to the standard of the Sabres and MiGs that are in operation with their respective air forces?

As often happens, it is necessary to make a number of small modifications before the aircraft goes into squadron service, and these modifications are now being made. When they are done, I am quite certain that I can give my hon. Friend that full assurance.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay has been absolutely grotesque? Is it not a fact that in the original trials of these aircraft the manufacturers' test pilot made certain observations which were not passed on by the manufacturers to the Royal Air Force? Will he look into that aspect of affairs?

We are dealing with two different types of aircraft here. I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to the Swift or to the Hunter. As regards the Hunter, in relation to the production programme to which we were working in March, 1953, deliveries of Hunters, which did fall badly behind at one time, have now largely caught up. The Swift is another story altogether, and there again we are dealing with more than one version. Originally the Swift was developed as a private venture by the manufacturers from a research aircraft commissioned by the Ministry of Supply. This research aircraft—the 535—was built to test some of the problems involved in the operational requirement issued in 1948 for an aircraft to replace the day fighters then in service.

The hon. Gentleman says that one squadron only has so far been equipped with the Swift. What was the expectation in the programme?

One squadron only has so far been equipped, and I make no secret of the fact that that is way below what we expected.

What was expected?

That I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, but what we have is below what we expected. However, this is not a tragic result. It is not a scandal. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have had considerable development difficulties.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is no new problem and that I urged the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to do something about it, both in speeches on the Estimates and by Questions, some four years ago and that very little was done at that stage?

We have spent a long time on this single Question. This seems to me to be much more suitable for a debate on the Estimates.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of new British jet fighters and bombers, apart from the Canberra, which have been put into operational squadron service since October, 1951.

It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Is it not a fact that there is a very big discrepancy between the substantial numbers which the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago had been delivered to the R.A.F. and the number actually in the squadrons? Can he say why it is that they are not suitable to go into squadron service?

The Question deals with fighters and bombers apart from the Canberra. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are no jet bombers apart from the Canberra in service.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the delay of six years from the moment the design study is made until an entirely new operational aircraft comes into use, is about the same in the United States as in this country, and that therefore it is not in any way exceptional? Would he also agree that we have in the Hunter an aircraft which will equal any operational fighter aircraft in the world?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether consideration will be given to increasing airmen's daily ration allowance so that a wider variety of food can be purchased.

The amount was increased on 1st November, and I hope that this will have the desired effect.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will take steps to improve the quality of food provided in the Royal Air Force, and, in particular, reduce the frequency of meals consisting of offal.

I think that on the whole people in the Royal Air Force are given very good food, although we are, of course, always seeking ways and means of improving our standards. A check from 100 units shows that the amount of offal bought each week is rather less than will provide one complete meal a man, and this hardly seems excessive.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will provide more modern cooking equipment for Royal Air Force stations.

We have worked out a programme of re-equipment, and we are pressing ahead with this as fast as we can.

Is it not a fact that although the food may be good in quality it is not always the most appetising when it is served? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, especially at this time of year, we can all applaud the fact that an attempt is being made to improve the cooking facilities?

We have been making great efforts since the war through training courses. We have increased the basic cook's course from eight weeks to 14 weeks, and we have introduced a 12 weeks' advanced cooking course.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recommendations for unilateral parking he has received from the Metropolitan Police for streets in the Tottenham Court Road area.

None, Sir, apart from those for streets on which in accordance with my statement to the House of 17th November and with my approval, experimental restrictions have been imposed since Monday, 6th December.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to try to obtain such recommendations? After all, it is the policeman on the beat who has the knowledge and experience in these matters, and his advice would be more useful than that of the heads of the Departments in this matter.

I shall certainly watch the matter, but I think that the experiments which only started on 6th December ought to be allowed to go on for a little while.

Is the Minister aware that the traffic difficulties in this area are absolutely appalling and that unilateral parking is at least one way in which improvement can be achieved? Will he look at, or encourage the Chief Commissioner of Police to look at, conditions in Great Portland Street?

I think that restrictions of this kind can help. I have introduced quite a lot of them, and I am watching them.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now proceed with construction of the new link road connecting the Newbury-Winchester Road with the Winchester by-pass and with the new road continuing the southern end of the by-pass with Bassett and Ower, with a view to diverting heavy traffic from the Midlands away from the city of Winchester and to facilitate the passage of summer traffic to the south coast.

The first step must be to publish the necessary draft Orders under the Trunk Roads Act, 1946. This I hope to do shortly, but I cannot at present say when it will be possible to proceed with these schemes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this first step will be very welcome, that Winchester depends for its livelihood very largely on retail trade, and that the present road is badly choked?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will, in constructing new dual-carriageway roads, better the standards in force before the war as to width, camber, gradient, and radius of curve.

Recommended standards for width and radius of new roads are now higher than before the war; so are those for super-elevation and vertical visibility. Standards for camber and gradient remain at present the same.

Is the Minister aware that there is a tendency in these new trunk and ring roads to allocate far too high a percentage to pavements and grass verges which, in fact, is a waste of carriageway and also of agricultural land, both of which we need in this country?

It may well be so, but that supplementary, I think, relates to the previous Question.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the waste of land and money involved in the provision of cycle tracks as well as footpaths on each side of the pre-war dual-carriageway roads; and whether, in any new programme for the extension of such roads, he will, in appropriate areas, provide for a single track in each direction for both cyclists and pedestrians.

For the sake of economy in both land and money, the overall widths of dual carriageway roads are kept to the minimum necessary to serve the needs of present and anticipated traffic. To combine cycle tracks and footpaths where these are necessary would not be in the interests of road safety.

Will the Minister look at the height and steepness of the kerbstones on the centre part of arterial roads? Before the war they sloped and, therefore, they were much less dangerous in an emergency. Now they are vertical and much higher, and obviously they would turn over a car and might lead to much more serious accidents than did the previous design?

I did indicate to the House a few weeks ago that I was looking into this question of the kerb on roads in rural areas, and I hope shortly to complete those investigations.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will specify the main stretches of road to be improved in the first year of the programme recently announced.

As I have already indicated, I hope to be able to make an announcement about the expanded roads programme soon after the Christmas Recess.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation at what points on Britain's coast helicopters are always available for saving life at sea; and what proposals he has to extend this development in air-sea rescue work.

Royal Naval and Royal Air Force helicopters are stationed at Anthorn, Brawdy, St. Mawgan, Culdrose, Gosport, Ford, Thornaby, Lossiemouth and Eglinton. There are also helicopters at the United States Air Force base at Manston. As I indicated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 8th December, these helicopters are provided in the first place to meet Service requirements, and their use for rescue work is therefore subject both to Service arrangements and to the operational limitations of helicopters of the type now in service. As more helicopters become available, the Royal Air Force plan to station them at Chivenor, Thorney Island, Martlesham Heath, Horsham St. Faith, North Coates, Leuchars, and possibly one or two other places. This will be done as rapidly as possible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is very difficult to take in all the names he has mentioned? Does he appreciate the great importance of helicopter sea rescue as a complement to the lifeboats? Is he attempting through his own Ministry to encourage the putting into operation of more of these services? Will he see that the matter is well publicised as one of great importance?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should be encouraged by the increased provision that is being made.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what tonnage of shipbuilding has been ordered by United Kingdom shipowners from European shipyards during the past 12 months.

I regret that I have not the information for which my hon. Friend asks. For over three years United Kingdom shipowners have been free to place orders in European shipyards without informing Her Majesty's Government. I can, however, say that, in the past 12 months, of the total new tonnage added to the United Kingdom register about 41,000 gross tons or 4 per cent. was built in Europe.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware of several substantial orders which have been placed in recent months by British shipowners with Continental yards because British shipbuilders were unable to quote fixed prices, and can my right hon. Friend do anything to assist the British shipbuilders in that respect?

I am certain that it would not assist British shipbuilders to consider re-imposing restrictions of one kind or another. One has to bear in mind the large tonnage built in British yards through foreign orders.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why British shipowners, who are clamouring for British trade, are sending their orders for new ships to the Continent?

The latest figure, which I gave in my original answer, was that only 4 per cent. of the ships added to the U.K. register were built in European yards. When account is taken of the large number of ships built in United Kingdom yards through foreign orders, that need not cause much concern.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of transport units so far disposed of and the number of vehicles contained therein.

Twelve thousand and fifty-four vehicles have been sold up to 21st December: 11,652 in 4,103 units, and 402 in three companies.

Does not this show that the average size of the units is from two to three vehicles? Does he appreciate that this continued fragmentation of the industry is giving very considerable concern both to industry, which is finding it increasingly difficult to secure the service which it requires, and also to those existing road hauliers who are finding that the small people who are coming in are flouting the law?

I do not accept that any particular class of road user is flouting the law. No doubt the hon. Member is pleased to see the considerable progress in sales which has taken place since he asked a Question on this subject on 6th December.

Apart from the fundamental question of policy which divides the Government and the Opposition, is it not a case that these sales have now reached rather a dribble and that the Government and industry are likely to be in a situation in which they are getting the worst of both worlds? Had the right hon. Gentleman not better contemplate calling a halt by saying, "These go to private enterprise and those that are unsold can go to the British Transport Commission"? Would that not be a sensible and rational thing to do in the circumstances?

I would not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he describes as a dribble a sale of 2,047 lorries in five weeks.

Is it not a fact that these vehicles can only be sold if they are sold at a trickle, that is to say, purchased by those who buy one, two or three vehicles, and that it was never the intention of the Act that sales should take place in this way and the industry be atomised?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the termination of this matter, but it will be recalled that it was clearly stated from this Box that it was the intention of the Act to give the small man an opportunity to return to this industry.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will increase the number of officers employed by his Department to ensure enforcement of the licensing procedure laid down by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.

As I have already announced, I have asked the Civil Service Commission to recruit some 170 additional driving and traffic examiners. This will increase the number of staff available for enforcement work.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a very great increase in the evasion of the law in regard to the licensing procedure, and that the enforcement officers are finding it possible to deal only with a few of the alleged breaches of the law? For instance, is he aware that in the London Home Counties there are only nine enforcement officers, which is quite inadequate? Will he, therefore, consider increasing the number to the greatest possible extent?

As the hon. Gentleman will see from my original answer, some additional enforcement staff is being provided in this way. So far as one particular area is concerned, I prefer not to answer without notice.

Is it not a shocking commentary on the sales of lorries that there is a need for an increase in enforcement officers as soon as there is sale to private enterprise?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw that deduction, however agreeable politically it might be for him to do so.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of convictions for offences committed in regard to the licensing of goods vehicles under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; and what was the number of enforcement officers employed in his Department for the latest available period of 12 months, and for the comparable period in 1938.

The number of convictions for these offences during the years ended 30th September, 1954 and 1938 was 8,324 and 16,675, respectively. On 30th September, 1954, 62 officers were employed mainly on this enforcement work, and during the early part of the year 36 examiners normally employed on driving tests were so employed for part of their time. The number of enforcement staff on 30th September, 1938; was 75.

If I heard the Minister correctly, is it not a fact that the number of convictions seems to have doubled during this period, and if it is not due to the sale of the vehicles, and this increasing competition which leads to these breaches of the law, what is responsible for this increase?

I know it is difficult to follow figures when they are read out, but when the hon. Gentleman looks at them he will find that the number of convictions in the 1954 period was approximately half those in 1938.

In view of the fact that it is well known that breaches of the law have very much increased, is not this evidence that there are insufficient enforcement officers at the present time?

I am not prepared to accept a generalisation of that sort.