asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number and types of ships that have been or will be transferred from the operational Fleet to the reserve during 1958, and the number and types of new construction that have been or will be added to the operational Fleet during the same period.

As forecast in the Explanatory statement which relates to the financial year 1958–59, there will be a net reduction of two cruisers, three destroyers and two submarines and an increase of four frigates in the operational Fleet. In the same period 1 new cruiser, 5 new frigates and 4 new submarines have, or will have, been commissioned.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is considerable disquiet about this continuing decrease in the size of the operational Fleet? Does not he agree that it is already dangerously small and that this running-down policy ought to be reversed?

Of course we have to build the Fleet which our resources permit and it is our policy to build the best ships within those resources. I think that all hon. Members will agree that our modern ships are not bettered by any other navy.

While realising that it is not possible to spend vast sums of money on building new ships, may I ask whether that is a reason for disposing of a large number of old ships?

The old ships we are disposing of are almost entirely of war-time or pre-war construction and the cost of bringing those ships up to the standard required by modern navies is out of all proportion to their value.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of officers serving on the headquarters staff; and the numbers of these employed on technical and administrative duties, respectively.

The number of uniformed officers serving on the headquarters staff on 1st October last was 729. It is virtually impossible to give an accurate breakdown because technical officers usually have some administrative duties and vice versa; but roughly two-thirds of these officers are employed on duties which are primarily technical and one-third on duties which are primarily administrative.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the recommendations of the Nihill Committee about headquarters staff have been put into effect and what results they are having, or will have?

Yes, the Nihill Committee recommendations are being put into effect now. We hope that when they are fully in operation there will be considerable reductions in the administrative staff.

Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea of how many years it will be before we have more admirals than ships?

That will be a very long time.

Can my hon. Friend say how these figures compare with the figures immediately pre-war, having regard to the fragmentary size of the Navy now compared with what it was before the war?

I am afraid I could not without notice.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many applications for discharge were received from all ratings under the age of 21 for 1957 and 1958. respectively; how many were permitted to purchase their discharge; how many were allowed a free compassionate discharge; and how many applications were refused.

Our records do not distinguish applicants under 21 years of age from those of 21 or over. In 1957, however, 32 juniors in the early stages of their training applied for discharge. Twenty-three of these applications were approved, of which 8 were free discharges. Nine applications were refused. In 1958 to the end of September there were 18 applications. Fifteen were approved, including 8 free discharges. Three were refused.

While I appreciate that Answer, may I ask whether the Minister appreciates that there is considerable feeling among many in the Navy who have never been allowed to have their appeals considered?

No. I am afraid that the hon. Member is wrong. Their appeals are always considered. The hon. Member's Question refers to juniors or to those under the age of 21. The appeals of those over 21 years of age are always considered and the refusals are fairly small in number.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many applications for discharge received from all ratings under the age of 21 years are at present outstanding; the present method of reviewing such applications; and whether he will consider modifying the present procedure to meet the particular needs of young boys who may wish to change their minds.

At the moment there are two applications from juniors under consideration in the Admiralty. I am not able to say whether or not there are others in the process of transmission. These applications are passed from the Commanding Officer to the Commander-in-Chief, who can either approve the application or pass it to the Admiralty.

If every case had to take as long as a case from my constituency, of which the Minister is well aware, it would be very discouraging for juniors even to apply. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that a more representative body or tribunal should sit to consider these applications, especially as I understand that the Grigg Committee was recently informed that there was considerable feeling in the Navy about these questions?

I do not think it is necessary, because the figures I have given show that the position is fairly satisfactory. In the case in which the hon. Member took great interest, there were special circumstances which caused the delay. In 1954, however, it was decided that for boys in the junior training establishments—those in whom the hon. Member is mostly interested—the term "compassionate grounds" was to be interpreted broadly and to be extended to include juniors who were clearly unhappy in the career they had chosen or which had been chosen for them.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will ease the terms and conditions of purchase of discharge from the Royal Navy.

As my hon. Friend knows, the number of men who can be allowed to buy their discharge depends on the overall manpower position. As this improves, it should be possible to increase the proportion of discharges by purchase. The position is now, and will continue to be reviewed quarterly.

As some of the applicants for such discharges will inevitably come from the Gosport area, may I ask my hon. Friend, first, how many applications are still outstanding; secondly, at what annual rate the purchase of discharges is being permitted; and, finally, what prospects there are of a sufficient improvement in the manpower position to permit some adjustment in the near future?

In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, there are 256 applications outstanding. The present target for this year is to release about 1,400 personnel by discharge. Therefore, in answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think that the position will very soon right itself.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what changes he is proposing to make in regard to the workshops in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport; and how many men will be affected, or considered redundant, as a result of the changes.

The only changes in workshop areas at present planned are the closure of the laundry in order to provide for expansion of the coppersmiths' shop, and the transfer of torpedo work to the Royal William Yard. Neither of these will involve any redundancy. Further changes in the use of workshops in the future are likely to take place in order to ensure adequate facilities for the Fleet, but it is not expected that they will result in any redundancy.

Will my hon. Friend give due notice concerning these changes? It is very unsettling when it is rumoured that changes are to take place when details are not known, in view of the real fears of unemployment. Will he see that some of these workshops are now modernised, since the first Nihill Committee stated that many of them were over 100 years old and needed bringing up to standard?

The trade unions were consulted and informed beforehand.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that the standards of the canteens in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, are up to the standards required by the Factories Acts; and if he will make a statement.

No provision is made under the Factories Acts for canteen standards—but of the 9 canteens in Devonport Dockyard, 3 have been built or modernised in recent years. If my hon. Friend has details of any complaints about the remainder and will write to me, I will gladly investigate them.

Was my hon. Friend's attention drawn to a statement in the Press which said that the Leader of the Opposition, when visiting the dockyard, had to sit at one of the tables, push aside a bag of sugar and make room for his half pint of tea, served in a cracked mug? Does my hon. Friend regard this as a good standard for Admiralty dockyard workers who have to eat there every day?

The Leader of the Opposition probably has more important matters to worry him than the state of the teacups that he may have met with.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many shipwright dilutees have been dismissed from Her Majesty's dockyards; how many have been employed in other jobs by the Admiralty; and how many Royal Navy shipwrights and shipwrights from private yards have been taken on the strength.

Forty-nine dilutee shipwrights have been discharged from the Royal Dockyards since 1st January this year. During this period 141 dilutee shipwrights have been reverted and re-employed in other jobs, while 87 ex-naval shipwrights and 62 shipwrights from private yards have been entered.

Does not my hon. Friend consider it very undesirable to have this grade of shipwright dilutees? It is very difficult for the men. They achieve a certain standard and those who have been reverted are now getting at least £4 or £5 a week less. Cannot my hon. Friend consult the trade unions and ensure that this does not happen in future?

I have a certain amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view and that of her constituents, but the agreement which allowed dilutees to be employed in the first instance provided for their discharge or reversion whenever time-served craftsmen became available. The Admiralty is bound by that agreement.

Has this procedure received the consent and agreement of the trade union section of the Admiralty Industrial Council?

I should like notice of of that question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) in what foreign countries orders have been placed for supplies of coal for use by the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement;

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave last Wednesday to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

While I appreciate the desirability of increasing East-West trade, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he deems this policy appropriate at this particular time in view of the position of our own coal industry? Is it a fact that the local contractors have offered coal supplied by shippers from South Wales of the type which has been used in Malta in the past?

Yes, Sir; but it is different coal. This was a purchase of large coal which at the time the contract was negotiated was not in surplus in this country. In addition, the Polish coal was nearly £4 cheaper than what was offered here, and the Admiralty has a duty to buy coal as cheaply as it can.

In deciding that Polish coal was cheaper, was the reason fully inquired into? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Polish coal is subsidised? Are we to understand, therefore, that the Government will take advantage of cheap coal which is subsidised in competition with coal produced by our own miners, who are now being put on the road? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that hundreds of miners in my constituency are facing unemployment for the first time for twenty years? The Government, however, are now buying cheap Polish coal and displacing our own miners.

The point is that the kind of coal we bought was not in surplus in this country.

The situation may now have changed. Are we to understand that the Admiralty is reconsidering the whole matter? Will the hon. Gentleman bear is mind that it creates a very bad impression among people who have given their lives to the country when the Government buy subsidised coal from Poland in preference to our own coal?

This was a tiny shipment of 3,800 tons out of a total requirement of the Admiralty of 260,000 tons. We will not buy more coal from Poland without further consultations with the Ministry of Power.

What is the procedure for the purchase of coal stocks in Gibraltar and Hong Kong?

In Gibraltar and Hong Kong, we buy from local contractors. We do not specify the source of origin of the coal. We buy the coal that is available and meets our requirements.

Are we now to understand that the Admiralty will no longer buy this subsidised coal from Poland. or is the custom to continue? This is a matter of first importance to every one of us from the mining areas.

We shall certainly not buy any more of this coal without first consulting the Ministry of Power, as we did for this shipment.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many nuclear-powered warships are expected to be in commission in the Royal Navy in 1961, 1962 and 1963; and how these numbers compare with the estimated numbers of similar warships in the United States Navy and the Soviet Navy.

It would not be in the public interest to give details of our plans for bringing nuclear-propelled warships into service. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Does not my hon. Friend agree, without giving away secrets, that, from the information available to the general public, it would seem that the number is not likely to be more than two? Further, will he agree that the very heavy programme of scrapping quite useful battleships can be justified only by an adequate replacement programme, and that the existing programme indicates that it will give us a very small Fleet in the early 'sixties?

It may be a very small Fleet, but it will be a very good one.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if, in fact, it is hoped to commence building, within the years mentioned, a nuclear-powered submarine capable of taking Polaris?

The hon. Gentleman knows, as I told him recently in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that we are going ahead with the purchase of nuclear machinery for our own Dreadnought submarine. As Polaris has not yet been fully proven or tried out in the United States, it is difficult to say what adjustments will be necessary to submarine hulls, but, certainly, some would be necessary, as otherwise our Dreadnought hull would not be able to take Polaris.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many warships armed with surface or antiaircraft missiles are expected to be in commission in the Royal Navy in 1961, 1962 and 1963; and how these numbers compare with the estimated numbers of similarly armed warships in the United States Navy and the Soviet Navy.

A considerable number of Her Majesty's ships will be so equipped by the early 1960's. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, realise the reasons why I cannot be more specific. In the circumstances, it is difficult to make the comparison asked for in the second part of the Question, but we are keeping our end up quite well.

Will my hon. Friend agree, again without giving away any secrets, that from the point of view of new construction there will be only three Hampshires and, possibly, three Tigers? Will he also undertake to study Sir Arthur Bryant's article in the Sunday Times, and realise that there is great anxiety in the country as to the future size and effectiveness of the Royal Navy?

I have read that article, and I quite appreciate the feeling of anxiety there is.

There has been an announcement by N.A.T.O. that a firm called Bristol Aerojet has been authorised to make Polaris and the solid fuel propellant here. Is that with the authority of Her Majesty's Government?

That is not a question for me to answer.

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us why it is within the public interest for the American Government to give their people all this information as to their future production programme, when it is not within the safety of our Government? What is the difference here?

This is quite a different question.

All this information about the American programme is known.

But not about their future programme.

In any case, the Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for what information the American Government give.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of the officers and ratings in the Royal Navy are, at the latest convenient date, appointed to a seagoing ship of the operational Fleet.

In June, 1958, the proportion of officers and ratings appointed to a seagoing ship of the operational Fleet was 46 per cent. Those serving afloat under training have been excluded from these calculations.

Does my hon. Friend consider it possible to keep the Royal Navy at maximum efficiency with less than half the personnel serving with the Fleet; and does he expect this proportion to go up or down?

My hon. Friend will remember that last week I told him that seamen officers and ratings expect to spend 60 per cent. of their time afloat in the seagoing fleet. The lower percentage that I had to give him today takes into account all the various technical branches who, naturally, spend less of their time at sea. We are, of course, doing everything we can to increase sea time for officers and men, and the proportion should increase.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, ten years ago, 57 per cent. were at sea, whereas today, apparently, the percentage is very much smaller? Does he think it right that there should be more and more men shore-based and less and less at sea? Is this the right kind of progress for the Royal Navy?

The right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that. The figure of 57 per cent. again was the seaman figure, and I would say that, at the moment, it has gone up; it is 60 per cent. I was answering today about the overall figure, which includes all the technical branches, and that is 46 per cent.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of flag officers in the Royal Navy have been qualified aircraft pilots.

Of the seaman flag officers, one in twelve is qualified as a naval pilot. This figure excludes qualified observers and those who hold "A" licences for civil aircraft flying.

As the air is now the principal medium of naval warfare, is not it desirable that there should be a higher proportion?

Our flag officers with air qualifications do serve in key positions in the Admiralty. The Vice-Chief of Naval Staff at the moment and the Director of Operations Division are airmen. There is no question of easing airmen out; they are given important and key posts in the whole of our Navy.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of the present captains of aircraft carriers have been qualified aircraft pilots.

We have five aircraft carriers in commission at the moment. The captain of one is a naval pilot; the captain of another has observer qualifications.

As the captain of an aircraft carrier is the person responsible for ordering pilots to take off and land—

Wrong again. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

—is not it desirable that a greater proportion should have some experience themselves of taking off and landing? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the United States Navy, all cap tains of aircraft carriers are expected to be seamen and fliers as well?

I do not know that it is necessarily desirable. The captain is appointed in command of the ship. The commander (air) is responsible to the captain for all flying operations and for the officers, men and material in the air department of the ship. We in the Navy regard the aircraft as a weapon like any other weapon. The hon. Gentleman would not expect the captain of a ship whose main armament was the gun to be a gunnery specialist or the captain of a ship whose main duties were antisubmarine to be an anti-submarine specialist. He is in command of the ship.

Is not it a fact that the proposal underlying this question is directly contrary to the recommendations of the officer committee of 1954, and that the American practice, which has its origins in history, has had very serious disadvantages, from the American Navy's point of view, in the operation of its fleet?

I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what decisions have been taken regarding the extension of Stornoway Airport; the purpose of this work; and its estimated cost.

No decisions have been taken; the airport is being surveyed to see whether it is suitable for development as a N.A.T.O. airfield. No estimate for costs can be given at this stage.

While we almost welcome a project of this kind for the employment it would create temporarily, with 32 per cent. unemployed and no other solution to the problem in the area, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will keep a personal, intimate eye upon the project so that we do not have a repetition of what happened with the rocket range project in South Uist, which was a bungle from beginning to end? Will he keep a personal eye on this project?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the specification for the next class of aircraft carrier includes the requirement to operate vertical take-off and landing.

I am afraid that I cannot disclose details of the Admiralty's plans for future aircraft carriers. I can say, however, that the development and possibilities of vertical take-off and landing are kept very much in mind.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what inquiries he has made about the cause of the recent accident when a Scimiter jet aircraft crashed over the side of H.M.S. "Victorious"; and why the information given in the official Admiralty statement, following the inquest, was not made available earlier.

A Board of Inquiry which was set up to investigate this accident established that the arrester wire broke because a small valve was accidentally left open when the arrester system was charged with hydraulic fluid during the ship's refit. In accordance with normal practice, the coroner was shown the findings of the Board of Inquiry. Owing to a misunderstanding, he thought that the cause of the breaking of the wire as shown in these findings was secret. In fact, the Admiralty would, at any time, have produced a witness to give the cause in court, if it had been asked to do so. The matter has now been cleared up to the satisfaction of the coroner.

I appreciate the latter remarks of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, with which the whole House would agree, but surely some explanation is necessary of the extraordinary behaviour of the Admiralty in this matter. Is not it a fact that the misunderstanding must have been created by the impression given by the Admiralty to the coroner before the inquest? Did not this statement made after the inquest make the coroner feel, as he said, that he had been bamboozled by the Admiralty?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in trying to find trouble here. It was a genuine misunderstanding. The coroner thought that he could not disclose what was in the findings and that they were secret. In fact, we would have made this information available through the ordinary processes of the court, had we been asked. Of course, we could not have issued any statement before the inquest.

Has my hon. Friend any information he can give the House about how it was that the pilot was unable to get out of the aircraft?

It is not possible to answer my hon. Friend's supplementary question very briefly, but perhaps the House will forgive me if, in all the tragic circumstances of this case and the publicity which attended it, I do try to answer.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what buildings, roadways, jetties and other works are to be built on the Ayrshire coast as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation naval defence installations; and at what cost.

These works will consist of a depôt for the antisubmarine boom which is to be laid in the Clyde. They will involve the reclamation of 4½ acres of land; the construction of an office block, workshop and stores; about 20,000 square yards of roads and paved areas; 2,500 yards of rail track, mostly sidings; shallow water barricades and a T-shaped jetty with a head 200 yards long connected to the shore by a 300 yards stem. The cost will be about £800,000.

Does this mean that the Admiralty is now preparing to fight the last war? Has the Minister heard that the Russians have now rockets which will carry hydrogen bombs 8,000 miles? Is he aware that these buildings are almost adjacent to the nuclear power station, and can he tell us how these arrangements will save the nuclear power station from attack by rocket?

The object of this installation has nothing to do with the nuclear power station. It is to protect the merchant fleets of the Allied Powers.

Can the Civil Lord say when this work will start and whether it is being financed by us or by N.A.T.O. under the infrastructure arrangements?

It is being financed under the normal N.A.T.O. arrangements. Various firms have been asked to tender, but no firm contract has yet been entered into.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will reconsider the case of Mr. C. P. Q. Beck, of 13, Westfield Road, Whitchurch, Cardiff, who served in the Royal Navy from November, 1928, to November, 1945, became a chief petty officer in June, 1941, received a medal for long and good service, and did not receive, on the termination of his service, the gratuity granted to chief petty officers who took temporary commissions during the last war.

No, Sir. The regulations under which Mr. Beck was released in November, 1945, did not provide for a Service gratuity, and of this he was well aware.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that many of the chief petty officers who took temporary commissions served on the aggregate shorter terms than Mr. Beck, and as the number of people in Mr. Beck's category appears to be reasonably small, will he look at the matter again?

I do not think that there is any point in looking at it again. At the end of the war, Mr. Beck could have served for an extra five years to qualify for pension, but he chose not to.

On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the tonnage of vessels ordered from Wear shipbuilders and the tonnage of orders with such shipbuilders cancelled this year.

New licences issued to Wear shipbuilders during the first nine months of 1958 totalled 117,000 gross tons. Licences totalling 35,000 gross tons were cancelled during the same period.

Is the Civil Lord aware that these figures are very disturbing, especially in view of the high output obtained by the Wear yards this year? Would he consider following his visit to the Clyde by coming to see us on the Wear?

I certainly intend paying another visit to the East Coast, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be quite so gloomy, because the cancellations on the Wear are, in fact, at a slightly lower percentage than the average throughout the United Kingdom as a whole.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what communications he has received stating that the lack of credit facilities is preventing orders being placed with British shipyards.

One, Sir.

Is the Civil Lord aware that I am very surprised? I have a copy of a communication made to him, and the Civil Lord has been kind enough to let me have a copy of his reply. We are very disturbed in Sunderland, where we appear to have lost two contracts solely through lack of credit facilities and are now facing another very important cancellation on the same ground. Will the Civil Lord bestir himself, and see the Admiralty about this?

It is not a question so much of bestirring myself as of becoming convinced that, in fact, credit facilities are at the root of the problem. I am not convinced of that yet. Apart from this one inquiry, brought to my notice as a result of an Adjournment debate, I have not had any others at all.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many shipbuilding berths are vacant on the Clyde; and what steps he is taking to arrest the decline in shipbuilding.

Thirteen shipbuilding berths were reported vacant in Clyde shipyards at the end of October, and five were being modernised or repaired. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in the debate on the Adjournment on 27th November.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has made strong protests to his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose action has very probably resulted in these five berths remaining empty? What is he doing to prevent other Ministers from taking action frustrating the efforts of shipbuilders on the Clyde to get orders?

I think that the hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) already has an Adjournment Motion on that subject. At the moment, therefore, I cannot comment further on it.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the rising incidence in unemployment in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing yards at Lowestoft, he will reconsider his decision not to place contracts for light craft and repairing work in that port.

As I told the hon. Member on 9th July, Admiralty contracts for this sort of work are now few and far between, and they must be shared out among a good many deserving areas besides Lowestoft. However, we are watching the position, and, if the opportunity occurs, we will do all we can to improve the order books.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that very small ray of hope, may I call his attention to the fact that, every week, skilled shipwrights and technicians are being discharged because of lack of orders? In view of the long history that the port of Lowestoft has in relation to Admiralty contracts, will he see if anything can be done to ameliorate the deplorable position that is arising in the port?

I am very conscious of the position there, and very sympathetic towards places like the port in the hon. Member's constituency, but I do not really think that it would be honest of me were I to hold out much hope of any change in the near future.

Is there any objection in principle to foreign Governments placing orders for small craft for the defence of their coasts with shipyards of this sort, and are such orders being executed at the moment?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is merely trying to get an answer to a Question that he addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on Monday.

With great respect, I am not. What I am asking is whether, in principle, there is any objection—and I am not referring to any specific country —to foreign Governments placing orders for small craft, which would relieve unemployment, and whether he can tell us if such orders are being executed at the moment?

No. If the hon. Gentleman really wants an answer to his question, I suggest that he put it on the Order Paper.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many major landing craft of the L.C.T. (8) and L.S.T. types have been completed since 1950.

None, Sir. The existing vessels still have quite a number of years of useful life left, and, before we build replacements, we are making a careful study of what the requirement is likely to be in a few years hence.

Is not it a fact that, of the existing vessels, the L.S.T. is too slow and the L.C.T. is not ocean-worthy, and that, as an island, the only way we can land our tanks and vehicles on a foreign country, except at a port, is by using specialised shipping? Have we not yet learned the lesson the last two wars?

Our existing landing craft are considered perfectly adequate for the tasks which they may be required to perform.

Has the hon. Gentleman read General Keightley's dispatches, and has he noted that one of the specific complaints was about the shortage of these craft at Suez? Does he mean that he has done absolutely nothing about it since that time?

The Admiralty does not operate craft for the build-up. That is done by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, which has a great many more than we have.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what tenders were made by British firms for twenty merchant ships now being constructed in Poland for Indonesia.

British shipbuilders are not required to report to the Admiralty what inquiries they receive to quote for building merchant ships. I regret, therefore, that the information is not available.

At a time when fifteen times as much tonnage is being placed by British shipowners with foreign shipbuilding works, as compared with the 1 per cent. which is coming here from foreign owners, is not it time that the Admiralty took a much more determined line about this and did its utmost to help our shipyards to obtain work, such as these orders in Poland?

I really do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. The Admiralty is extremely interested in helping the shipbuilding industry. All I said was that the shipbuilding industry does not have to report to the Admiralty any inquiries it receives, and therefore, to that extent, I cannot answer the Question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what consideration the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has given to the question of the tonnage of vessels ordered by United Kingdom shipowners from foreign yards.

The Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has given consideration to the question of orders placed by United Kingdom shipowners from foreign yards; and I can assure the hon. Member that the Committee will continue to pay close attention to any fresh evidence on the subject that comes before it.

This reply is more reassuring than the hon. Gentleman's earlier replies, but will he consider publishing the advice that this committee cares to make, since there is considerable and widespread interest in this problem, in view of the fact that this is an industry which has depended on exports but which has become an importing industry? Has not this become a very serious matter for the country?

The Committee, as its name implies, is an advisory committee. For that reason, therefore, I am afraid that I could not consider publishing its recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now state when he expects Maryhill Barracks to be finally evacuated by his Department and the site made available.

It is too soon to give a firm undertaking, but we expect to give up Maryhill Barracks during 1960.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent need for this site in the City of Glasgow where there are literally tens of thousands of houses which are over 100 years old? Since no other sites are now available, will he do all he can to expedite the evacuation?

We are making considerable progress and we can give the hon. Member a target date now which we were unable to do in July. This is as far as we can go at the present moment.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the administration of the Central Ordnance Depôt, Didcot, having regard to the use of public stores in excess of scale in messes and offices, and the carrying out of unnecessary painting and decorating.

I shall be glad to investigate these charges if the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with evidence, but, so far as I can discover, there is no substance in either of them. Routine maintenance work, including painting and decorating, has been in progress during recent months. It was properly authorised and done in accordance with the regulations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is surprising in view of the fact that Didcot is a War Office controlled establishment, and that it is clear from the plan which I have here, and which I will willingly lend the right hon. Gentleman for use in the War Office, that the officers' mess is to have its accommodation increased from 24 dining members to an establishment of 44, plus sleeping accommodation for one field officer and three junior officers, and this at a time when the over-all establishment is contracting? Is he further aware that there have been three redecorating contracts in the last eighteen months?

I think that in two out of the three cases the officers' mess was painted in two different stages, and a number of offices have also been painted. My information is that the decorations will not be affected by the changes to the structure of the building.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to investigate the extension of the mess, in view of the fact that the establishment is not increasing but decreasing?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always very ready to take up any point which he brings to my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many horses and grooms, civilian and military, are held on the establishment of the Central Ordnance Depôt, Didcot; for what purpose they are provided; for what purpose they are used; what additional stabling has been recently built, at what cost and under what authority; how many horses are stabled and fed at public expense in excess of establishment, and by whom such animals are owned.

Two horses are used at Didcot for pulling refuse carts and delivering fuel. They are worked and looked after by two civilian labourers. There are no grooms on the establishment. To replace a stable which was unsafe, an old building was converted into a stable at a cost of £40. No other horses are kept at public expense.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two animals, one called Deputy and the other called Slumber, were on the establishment for the purpose of pulling the garbage cart? These animals were put down and the Commandant made a special journey to an R.A.V.C. depôt to select two more horses, Lottery and Josephine. The two horses were selected not for their capabilities of pulling the garbage cart, but for riding. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inquire about the date on which vouchers were first passed for the use of these horses? Is he also not aware—

This is a very long supplementary question. Cannot the hon. Gentleman condense it a little?

I am only following up the Question on the Order Paper. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Commandant's wife's horse is stabled on Government property and is fed at Government expense and that no vouchers have been passed? Further, is he aware that a National Service man—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to go into great detail, I think that he ought to try to obtain an Adjournment debate on the matter. Long supplementary questions take up too much of other hon. Members' time.

I should long ago have completed my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but for the noises opposite. Am I not entitled to your protection—

I will always protect the hon. Member if he requires protection, but I have to protect other hon. Members as well.

Am I not entitled to your protection, Mr. Speaker, so that I can complete my supplementary question? Is not the right hon. Gentleman also aware—

On a point of order. May I move that the hon. Gentleman be no longer heard?

That is not in order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would ask his supplementary question and be done with it.

I propose to do that, Mr. Speaker. Is not the right hon. Gentleman further aware that a National Service man, who was in peace time an apprentice in a racing stable, was taken from his duties to look after these horses?

First, I am not aware of the names of the horses. Their duties are to pull the carts and they do their work excellently. I am afraid that I do not know their antecedents. As to the National Service man, there are two civilians who drive the horses and look after them. One was sick and a National Service man took his place for five months. I think that that answers the majority of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to carry out some further investigations and to make sure that these horses, which are held on the establishment to pull the garbage carts, in fact pull the garbage, including some of the hon. Members opposite?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the provision of a punt for duck shooting and the shooting of pet cats to preserve pheasant shooting in the Central Ordnance Depôt was made with his authority.

No punt has been provided for duck shooting and no pet cats have been shot by the Army. Large ordnance depôts have to clear away at intervals the cats which live and multiply among depôt buildings, particularly those which go wild or are not looked after. They are destroyed by the R.S.P.C.A. This has been done at Didcot for many years.

Is not it a fact that at least 70 cats have been destroyed and that they have been destroyed in order to protect the pheasant shooting? Is not it also a fact that a punt has been built in the depôt at public expense? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to make inquiries and to examine the work tickets? Is not it also a fact—[Interruption.] On a point of order. May I again ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker? If there were conduct such as this and if noises were made by any hon. Member on this side of the House such as are being made now by hon. Members opposite, I am quite sure that we might by this time have heard your rebuke.

Order. Do I understand the hon. Member to say that if the noise had been on his side of the House I should have intervened?

I said that we might have heard your rebuke.

I must express my resentment of any imputation that I have sides in a matter of this sort. I cannot prevent noise from being made on either side of the House. I can only ask for order and ask hon. Members to obey the rules. I have noticed no particular hon. Member on one side or the other, making a noise, whom I could call to order. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) must remember that if he asks for order he should maintain it.

If I inadvertently made any reflection on the Chair I shall be the first to withdraw but, equally, I will not be intimidated by rowdy yahoos, whether they are in uniform or whether they wear civilian clothes and sit opposite. The question which I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: will he be good enough to make inquiries to see whether in the last few weeks a punt has been built at the public expense? He can do this by examining the work tickets. Would he regard this not as a joke at a time when the efficiency of these ordnance depôts is vital to the security of this country? Will he take the necessary steps to see that at Didcot, at least, things are in order?

I certainly do not treat it as a joke, but I think the hon. Member has got the wrong end of the stick. For years there has been a raft on the lake to keep it clear of weeds which grow there. After those years the raft was worn out and a new punt was provided.

Would not the Secretary of State agree that these perfectly reasonable questions could have been answered very easily if my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the Secretary of State had not been interrupted for some ten minutes by hon. Members opposite?

asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to increase the number of troops in Kenya; and the purpose of this reinforcement.

There has been no change in the policy described last February in my right hon. Friend's Memorandum on the Army Estimates.

The hon. Member will be aware that there has been an announce- ment that the number of troops is to be increased. Will his Department be very careful indeed about increasing the number of troops in Kenya and taking any steps to establish a base there, which would be in opposition to the opinion of the overwhelming mass of the people, who are Africans?

The Government's policy about this matter rests on the White Paper and is well known. There are two battalions stationed there and, of course, the East African Governments are being fully consulted and informed throughout.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the discontent of the men of the 260 Company, R.P.C., Burniston Barracks, Scarborough, Yorkshire, who are clearing bombs off the Yorkshire moors; if he will state the hours they are working away from barracks; on how many days per week; and if he will have an inquiry made into the reasons for the discontent.

These men do about five hours' search of the moors and two hours' travel on 4½ days each week. Wednesday afternoons are free for games. At week-ends leave is granted for 36 or 48 hours. I am not aware of any general discontent over these arrangements.

Is the Minister aware that this does not agree with what the men themselves say? Is he aware that they are doing a dangerous job and that already two men have been injured and one has been killed? Does he realise that the men themselves feel that they are away from the barracks for far too long in view of the work they are doing and that there is general discontent? Will he make some inquiries among the men themselves to find out what they are saying about it?

If the hon. Lady will write to me, I will take up any point she

asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee of Public Accounts regarding the blunders which resulted in an unwanted surplus of 1,250,000 pairs of boots and 1,080,000 pairs of half-soles, what action is being taken against those in his Department responsible for this unsatisfactory state of affairs and the inevitable heavy loss of public money.

Both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee have made it clear that most of this surplus was due, not to mistaken orders, but to a deliberate reduction in the level of reserve stocks. The surplus was, however, larger than it need have been because of the mistakes in administration commented on by the Committee. There has naturally been a careful inquiry in my Department into this matter. No negligence or misdemeanour has come to light which would call for disciplinary action.

Having read the Report, I am surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. How does he square what he said with this extract from the Report:

"Your Committee fail to understand why the War Office should have ordered in 1955, when there were no unusually pressing circumstances, a far greater quantity of boots and half-soles than was warranted."

There is no question of trying to whitewash any blunders. I am endeavouring to put the matter in proportion. There are 1,250,000 surplus pairs of boots, which was about three pairs per man in the standing Army of the time. Of that number, 1,100,000 are being disposed of because of the changed policy of reserve holdings. The extra 150,000 were over-ordered.

Will the Minister say why it is necessary to keep 9¼ years' stocks of boots? Will he answer that? How will he dispose of the boots?

They will be disposed of by the Ministry of Supply.

asked the Secretary State for War what machinery exists in his Department for supervising the placing of large orders for supplies; why, after receiving the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, he did not take action to deal with the situation but preferred to await the report of the Committee of Public Accounts; and what administrative action he proposes to avoid such financial waste in future.

In answer to the first part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16th July. Action consequent upon the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General was begun at once; there was no question of waiting upon the Public Accounts Committee. Changes have been made in training, financial control and ordering procedure. That is part of a continuing process to keep the Army's organisation for supply as efficient as we can make it.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the Leader of the Liberal Party that he was waiting for the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts? Has he no check on his own Department, when an obvious mistake has been made, to enable him to take action either to clear the people concerned or to sack them?

Action has been taken on the controlling of procedure. As to what happened before the Public Accounts Committee Report was published, what I told the hon. Member was that I could not refer to this until the Public Accounts Committee had reported.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these two Reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee substantiate in essence the charges which my hon. Friend has made on these matters over many months now and that a more satisfactory explanation should be given?

There is no question about this. About 157,000 pairs of boots too many were bought, and that was pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he proposes to put a million surplus boots on the market at knockdown prices it will cause considerable alarm in Northamptonshire?

That is a matter for the Minister of Supply.

On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory Answer, I give notice that I will try to raise the matter on the Adjournment before Christmas.