asked the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will initiate discussions with the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development with a view to visits by Her Majesty's ships to The Hartlepools and other ports in the North-East with the object of promoting and establishing new industries in the development districts and showing potential industrialists the existing benefits available in the North-East.

I hive consulted with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, but it is not readily apparent in what way lists by Her Majesty's ships would further the object that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I shall be willing to consider any further views that he may have. Nevertheless, we hope to be able to arrange visits by four submarines to various ports on the North-East coast during the summer and autumn of this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I put it to him that 16th December of this year will be the fiftieth anniversary of the bombardment of The Hartlepools, and does he not agree that that would be a good occasion for a visit from one of H.M. ships, bearing in mind that there is a recruiting office in The Hartlepools?

Whether that would be a suitable matter to commemorate in this way I am not at all sure. I should like to consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the interests of economy, conciseness and avoidance of misunderstanding, he will replace the expression Minister of Defence United Kingdom by the single word Admiralty in the address of operational messages dispatched after 1st April, 1964, by Her Majesty's ships to his Department.

No, Sir. As an interim measure between April and the autumn, signal messages intended for the Navy Department will use a single group to denote the address, MOD(Navy). As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on 4th March last, after the autumn we propose to introduce one address, MOD(UK), for all messages to and from the Ministry of Defence.

Is not the expression "Moduk" rather a poor substitute for the old-fashioned term "Admiralty", and would it not be a proper acknowledgment of the powers delegated to my right hon. Friend by the Lord High Admiral if he were to retain the old expression?

I did not use the expression "Moduk". I said "MOD" and then, in brackets, "UK". Whether in practice people will say "Moduk" remains to be seen.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many SRN hovercraft are on order for the Royal Navy; and when he expects the first craft to be operational.

None, Sir, for operational purposes, but the Navy Department is co-ordinating the Services' interest in hovercraft and a military version, the SRN3, due to be delivered soon, has been built for evaluation trials which will be conducted at the Inter-Service Trials Unit at H.M.S. "Ariel".

Would not the SRN hovercraft be an advantage for use in Borneo waters now, and has my hon. Friend thought ahead about its possible use in tropical waters?

We are considering this now, but I must tell my hon. and gallant Friend that there are a number of administrative and financial details which would have to be examined in that context.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received the report of the inquiry last summer into the reasons why newly-qualified craftsmen are leaving the naval dockyards; and what action he proposes to take.

Yes, Sir. The evidence provided by this report is being considered as part of the general review within the Department.

Why has the report not been published? Is it because it reveals a serious waste of public money? Is it the Minister's intention to publish the report?

No, Sir. The report was commissioned for internal consumption. It is a piece of domestic introspection and, frankly, it is not suitable for publication. I can certainly rebut the hon. Member's allegation that a great deal of waste of public money is involved in this matter.

Is it not a fact that for some considerable time there has been concern at the wastage of craftsmen trained by the Admiralty's very admirable training system and high quality of instruction who leave to go into private industry? The Admiralty seems to be subsidising general technical education for the country. Would not one solution be to improve pay and conditions so as to make it worth while for craftsmen to stay in the employment of the Admiralty?

As I said, we are reviewing all these matters. The wastage rate is not particularly highߞI have no reason to believe that the rate is any higher than that in private industry—and although it poses some problems, this is not a problem that we think so dangerous or difficult that it cannot be solved.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are quite pleased to have men receive this very high level of training? What is wrong is that it is charged against the Defence Vote.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operations, in and about the Faroes fishing grounds, of the British inspection ship "Duncan", indicating its duties and the incidents in which it has been involved since its arrival there in March.

H.M.S. "Duncan" was on patrol off the Faroes from 11th March until 7th April, when she was relieved by H.M.S. "Malcolm". The duties of these ships have remained as stated in my reply to the hon. and learned Member on 16th March last. There have been no reports of incidents involving either H.M. ships or British trawlers.

Do the Government think that the presence of these inspection ships is conducive to better relations between the respective fishing fleets? If so, in what way? If not, will the Government invite the relevant Governments to have a further conference with a view to settling the differences that have existed since the recent conference in London, which failed in this respect?

No, Sir. As I explained to the hon. and learned Member on 16th March last, the purpose of H.M. ships being around the Faroes is to

"…give advice to any British fishing vessels which are uncertain as to the position of the new limitsߪ"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th march, [964; Vol. 691, c. 127].

That is the purpose for which our ships are there, and so far the thing is working very smoothly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is proposed to fit the Polaris submarines with the Westinghouse Mark 21 launching system.

Yes, Sir.

I express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he confirm that it is still the Government's intention to use American missiles with British warheads?

Yes, Sir. There has been no change in what we have already said about the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is expected that H.M.S. "Fearless" will be completed and commissioned.

As stated when the announcement was made ordering the new assauls: ship, H.M.S. "Fearless" is expected to join the Fleet in 1965. There is no reason to alter that forecast.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether "Intrepid" will follow in about six months, as was also promised?

Yes, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when the keel was laid, what the estimate of the expense of building the ship was at that time, and what it is now proving to be?

The keel was laid in July. 1962. I am afraid that I cannot, without notice, give details of the cost, but no doubt a perusal of the appropriate Navy Estimates will give the hon. and learned Gentleman the information he seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now undertake to order a nuclear-powered fast replenishment tanker or other naval surface vessel, as soon as the Atomic Energy Authority have developed a satisfactory marine reactor.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this subject on 9th and 14th April.

Is there not hope that a suitable m nine reactor will soon be developed, and is it not important that we should get experience of it as soon as possible? If help were to come from other Votes, might it not be best if it were a naval ship?

All these matters are under consideration in connection with the report of the Working Group and, as my right hon. friend said in answer to the Questions I have mentioned, we feel that the best thing is to get the right answer rather than to get a speedy one.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will allow 30 caravans to be installed at St. Budeaux, Plymouth, in order to provide more accommodation for Service married couples.

A scheme to supplement married quarters with caravans on a selected site at St. Budeaux is under consideration, but I doubt whether we shall be able to achieve the number of 30 caravans mentioned by my hon. Friend.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether it is to be the policy of his Department to provide caravans where necessary in future in other areas besides St. Budeaux; and can my hon. Friend also expedite the provision of this sort of accommodation?

Yes, Sir. We realise that in certain circumstances caravans can provide welcome assistance to a solution of the married-quarters problem. On this particular site the basic problem is one of finance, because to put a site in order for individual caravans to the standard set by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act is extremely expensive. But we are pressing on as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will institute an inquiry into the wage structure of the unskilled labourers in Her Majesty's Dockyards especially for those who by nature of the job are never able to earn any overtime.

The new wage structure for these men, which became fully effective from 1st April, 1964, was agreed with the trade unions concerned after prolonged negotiations, during which the industrial wage structure in all Government engineering establishments came under consideration. I do not consider that a further inquiry is necessary. As I informed my hon. Friend on 14th April last, most of the unskilled labourers in Her Majesty's Dockyards have the opportunity of working some overtime.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very disappointing reply? Does he realise, when we talk about an affluent society, that many of these people have to live on £ 10 3s. a week with no opportunity at all for overtime? As they are in Her Majesty's Government's employ, surely the Government can give a lead to see that this position is rectified?

I think we should be careful to remember what we are talking about. We tare talking about unskilled labourers. The basic rate and the rate now being paid is the average of the rates paid in 34 large and representative industries. There is no question of unskilled labourers in Her Majesty's Dockyards being singled out for particularly unfavourable treatment.

Will the Under-Secretary say whether the arrangements include any allowance for the increase in the cost of living and, if so, whether the Department considers it is bound by this clause as a contractual obligation or whether it will stand by it so feebly as it did in 1961?

I cannot without notice answer the first part of that supplementary question, except to say that between July, 1962, and April, 1964, there has been an increase of £1 4s 2d in the basic rate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why he will not allow the hon. Member for Rugby to see War Office Memorandum 18/Gen / 3748 (P.A. 3 (a)) of 6th July 1961.

The memorandum is an internal Departmental document which, by well-established practice, should not be disclosed outside official circles.

Is this document in any way graded as restricted, secret or top secret? If it is only confidential, why cannot it be shown to the person whom it affects and who has been refused access to it?

It is not classified. It is confidential only in the sense that it is for official use. It comes into the category of Departmental and inter-Departmental minutes and memoranda containing advice and recording decisions, referred to by the then Lord Chancellor on 6th June, 1956.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the refusal by his Department to disclose this document gives rise to the firm impression that there are only two possible explanations: first, that the document has been lost—which, in my experience of the War Office, would not be unsual—and, secondly, that the content of the document concedes the very point which I have been trying to make for the last 18 months with his Department?

Neither of those explanations is correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will arrange for the issue of combat suits on a scale sufficient for the use of combat troops of the Territorial Army.

As I stated in the Army Estimates debate on 9th March, we are studying the question of the issue of combat dress to the Territorial Army. I am not yet able to make a statement.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the cost of this step would be offset to a large extent by the saving in the wear and tear of service dress, which is particularly heavy in, the case of Highland regiments wearing the kilt?

The cost is about ill million. Battle dress is, of course, the normal dress used by the T.A. for training and operations. I doubt if we would save all that much.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants working in the Army Department of the Ministry of Defence have suffered a financial loss after the recent 3 per cent. pay award because they are no longer eligible for a daily travel allowance.

When the recent pay award is put into effect, about 12 employees will suffer financial loss.

Is not the object of increasing pay to give some benefit to the recipients? What justification is there for raising someone's salary in order to do him harm?

We are not doing him harm. He comes above the salary limit at which his travel allowance ceases.

But, surely, this could be phased so that people in receipt of travelling allowances do not lose the benefit as a result of a salary increase. Would not my hon. Friend look at this question again?

We have looked at is very carefully, and I think that this figure of £1,200 is about right.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of my hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the vat number of casualties sustained by the combined British forces during the conflict between Malaysia and Indonesia, and the number caused to Malaysia forces, respectively.

Since December, 1962, the Combined British forces including Gurkhas have sustained 99 casualties in the course of operations in Borneo. Malaysian forces, including police and border scouts, have suffered 50 casualties.

In view of those casualties, can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it is intended that our troops should remain in Malaysia? Is he aware that it was eventually discovered that there was no possibility of a military solution in Malaya, and a political solution was found? Is it not likely that, if the Government made the effort, a political solution could be found here?

Our troops must remain there while there is a military job to be done, and I know that the whole House will join with me in tribute to the way in which they are at present doing it. We are, of course, exploring every possible method of reaching a final solution of the problem.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, roughly, what is the proportion of British to Malaysian forces serving in Borneo at the present time?

Not without notice, but I can say that the contribution of Malaysia herself has been steadily building up and, in relation to her resources, is not inconsiderable. For instance, she has three battalions deployed, compared with, I think, eight British.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing I said was intended to be anything in the nature of a rebuke of our troops? On the contrary, they are always doing a good job. But, having regard to what happened in Malaya, should not the Government be considering the possibility of a political solution?

As I told the right hon. Gentleman, this possibility is under active consideration, and is being pursued.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the Report of the Royal Arsenal Review Committee; and whether he intends to publish it.

I expect to receive the Interim Report of the Woolwich Review Committee shortly. It will not be published.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has at last set up the machinery for the comprehensive development of this whole area? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the decisions of this Review Committee are co-ordinated with the ideas of the planning authorities?

I shall certainly be in touch with my right hon. Friend. The position is that we shall have this interim Report, which will be a useful first step and which will contain broad conclusions about possible future Government activity in the area. Final deci- sions about the overall development will be taken by Ministers after every aspect of redevelopment, including that in which the hon. Member is interested, has been considered.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that local branches of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, drawing workers from a much wider area than solely the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), are very anxious about the future employment of their members in the whole area? Will the Report take these matters into account?

I have been in touch with the unions through the War Department Industrial Council about all the considerations affecting their interest.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what repayment to public funds is being made for the bridge built by a platoon of Coldstream Guards on a private estate at Langley, Northumberland.

None, Sir. This was a rough footbridge made in the course of a week's exercise, out of two larches and some slab-wood, from the estate where the platoon had been allowed to go for its training. The owner did not ask for it to be built, or for it to be taken away.

rose— [Interruption.]

Order. Other hon. Members should remember that it is possible that somebody wants to hear the question.

While the officer concerned may have acted with the best motives in bringing his platoon on to his father's land and building this bridge there, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it may constitute an undesirable precedent capable of abuse if it is carried out on an extended scale? There is quite a serious point involved.

I am sure that officers, however young, are sufficiently responsible to make sure that there shall not ever be any abuse. It is a good thing When training can be varied by being done on private land as opposed to ordinary Army training areas. We are grateful in the Army Department to landowners who make this possible. Their permission needs to be obtained, and the platoon commander in this case had sensibly asked his father if he might bring his platoon to train on his property.

Since permission was readily given for an exercise which led to the construction of this bridge, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether permission will equally be forthcoming if the Engineers decide to have an exercise to demolish the bridge?

I do not see why not. So far as I know, permission for this training was readily given, and the Army is very grateful when this sort of thing happens.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's first reply imply that a number of exercises have taken place on private land? If so, will he say what other works have been undertaken by soldiers on these other estates?

I have no information about how often it happens. Soldiers often go to Northumberland for training, and when, as in this case, they are able to do their training in what is the regimental recruiting area and, therefore, enable the regiment to show their faces in the locality where they get recruits, it is a very good thing.

Does my right hon. Friend know of any bridges which might require building over the Thames in the Lambeth area?

Wide as is the scope of the Infantry, I think this might be outside even theirs.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the organisation of the Army logistic services.

A Committee under the chairmanship of General Sir Roderick McLeod was set up last year to review the Army logistic organisa- tion and to recommend whether any changes were necessary in the interests of greater efficiency or more economical use of manpower and materials.

The Committee's main recommendation, which has been accepted, is that the three primary logistic functions of supply, transport and repair should each become the single responsibility of a separate Corps. To give effect to this, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps will take over from the Royal Army Service Corps the supply of rations, petrol, oil and lubricants and will thus become responsible, with certain minor exceptions, for supplying all the Army's stores and equipment; the Royal Army Service Corps, having shed its present responsibility for supply, will add to its duties those of the Royal Engineers transport units and the Movement Control Service, and will thus have sole responsibility for Army transport.

The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers already carry out almost all the repair work in the Army, but certain of the Committee's recommendations for the transfer of some additional repair responsibilities are at present being studied and will be implemented if desirable.

Her Majesty The Queen has graciously consented to a proposal that the new Corps to be formed from the transport elements of the Royal Army Service Corps and the Royal Engineers transport units shall be known as the Royal Corps of Transport. The Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers will retain their existing titles.

It will be some months before detailed plans are ready and we can begin introducing the new organisation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not quite improper for a Minister to make a major statement of this nature in answer to a planted Question from the back benches? Should not a statement of this nature be made by leave of the House after Questions?

It does not raise strictly a point of order. But everybody knows that it is inconvenient if long Answers are given in the ordinary course of Questions. Exactly which is the more desirable practice is usually a matter of judgment on each particular occasion. I do not myself think that on this occasion the exercise of judgment was utterly happy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer was no longer than the usual supplementaries asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin)?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to launch against the hon. Member for Govan, unprovoked, an unwarranted and unjustifiable attack in that way?

I do not think that the epithets "unwarranted" or "unjustifiable" give rise to a matter about which I might express an opinion; but what I do emphasise is that no hon. Member should use the privilege of asking a supplementary question to make remarks which are, however, genial, offensive. Sometimes, one lets them pass in the hope of saving time, but we do not seem to have done that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this division of responsibility among the branches of the Army seems extremely logical and reflects credit on General McLeod and upon his Department? What is likely to be the effect on the Royal Engineers, who, as I understand it, are losing a certain amount of functions? What will they do in the future?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I did wrong in seeking to give the House this information at Question Time. It is an important statement regarding the Army, and I wished to make it.

In reply to my hon. Friend, it is true, as I said, that the present transport functions of the Sappers will go to the Royal Corps of Transport, and to that extent the Corps of Royal Engineers will be smaller, but I do not think that this will have a very significant effect upon the future of the Royal Engineers, because the personnel engaged in these transport activities have tended to be specialists in their own field. Nevertheless, as we have done in arriving at the decision to implement this recommendation, we shall watch the position of the Sappers very closely.

Will the functions of movements as well as transportation now pass from the Royal Engineers to the new corps?

I said in my original Answer that movement control would become a function of the new corps.

Is not there a danger of my right hon. Friend, in effect, making two bites at the cherry? Does not all logistics really come under one heading, and will there not be overlapping between the various new organisations? Would it not have been much better to have one corps dealing with logistics as a whole?

This was considered, but even if we had one corps the three functions of repair, transport and store-holding would be separate functions in themselves and that even one corps would have required three divisions to discharge them, which would have been a less desirable arrangement, I think, than the one we have arrived at. We have sought in this solution to reduce overlapping to the very minimum.

In the interests of brevity, how many more generals?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many railway warrants each member of the Armed Services receives each year when in a United Kingdom station; whether he will consider making one of these warrants transferable to a wife or a dependent relative; and what would be the approximate cost of allocating an extra warrant for such a purpose.

Each member of the Armed Services may receive up to three free return warrants each year for leave journeys in the United Kingdom. Warrants are also issued for sick leave and embarkation or disembarkation leave, and for compassionate leave when the free annual leave warrants have been exhausted. Wives and children of Service men are permitted by British Railways to travel at concessional fares. The cost of issuing an extra warrant would be just over £1 million each year. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the present arrangements are fair and sees no justification for extending them at extra cost to public funds.

While thanking my hon. Friend for a lot of information, may I ask whether he would recognise the possibility of the use of one of the basic warrants by a close member of the Service man's family? Would not a great morale advantage accrue to the Armed Services when they are serving a long way from home if a member of the family could use one of these warrants to get back to see the immediate family?

The great problem here is that it would be almost impossible to restrict this to the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend suggests. If we had to extend it to overseas stations a considerably increased financial obligation would rest upon us.

Would not the hon. Gentleman look again at this question of warrants for wives and families, because the more the Government do to meet the reasonable needs of Service families the more they will help to persuade men to sign on again?

We are aware of this, but concessional arrangements are given by the railways for wives and children.

To what parts of the United Kingdom are travel warrants issued for air travel? Will my hon. Friend consider issuing them across the Irish Sea to Northern Ireland?

Service men on leave may travel by air at public expense between the Hebrides and the nearest airport on the mainland, which I understand is Glasgow, because of the infrequency and uncertainty of the steamship services. There is also a concession for air travel at public expense between Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. because there is an irregular service in the summer and no service at all in the winter. We have no plans to extend either of these.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what flag will now be flown by his Department in view of the abolition of the three separate Service flags.

The separate Service flags have not been abolished. The main building of the new Ministry of Defence flies the Union flag, the White Ensign and the R.A.F. Ensign. Other buildings fly the Union flag on days when flag; are generally flown.

I welcome that reply, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is something to be said for having a Ministry of Defence flag as well, and is not this an opportunity when a new design might perhaps be made?

No, Sir. I think there are enough flags.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will compile and published a list of all Royal Air Force personnel illegally detained in Nazi concentration camps during the last war;

(2) if he will compile and publish a list of all Army personnel illegally detained in Nazi concentration camps during the last war.

No, Sir. The records we have are incomplete, so that we could not province an accurate and comprehensive list. Even to provide an incomplete list would involve a wholly disproportionate amount of time and effort. In any case, I doubt whether publication would be desired by many of the persons concerned.

Does not my hon. Friend think that, in view of the serious nature of the health of some persons in this category, about which evidence has been sent to the Foreign Office, and the current negotiations with the Federal German Government, the War Office should look at the matter again, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary, in order to avoid delay in the case of those who are genuine claimants, in the event of any settlement?

Such information as we have—which is, I am afraid, incomplete—has already been made available to the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the method of payment in regard to members of Her Majesty's Forces who seek discharge by cash payment and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. We consider the Service Regulations governing the payment of purchase money to be satisfactory.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware thaththtthat people seeking discharge very often have to send in cash payments that people seeking discharge very often have to send in cash payments from overseas, which involves them in considerable difficulty? Would he consider having a central point in this country to which people could send their cash payments for discharge? This would relieve a great deal of hardship and inconvenience.

Yes, Sir. I will look at this suggestion. The Royal Navy Regulations provide that the sum has to be paid to the supply officer of the ship. Army and Royal Air Force Regulations provide generally for payment to an officer, and usually to the accounting officer of the man's unit. if there is any way in which we can avoid difficulties of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member in his letter to me the other day I will certainly see whether we can do something.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the cost, covering the Army, Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, of the operations in North Kalimantan.

The extra cost of operations by British Forces in Eastern Malaysia is estimated at nearly £3½ million up to 31st March, 1964.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to a recent article in The Times newspaper, the cost of these operations is estimated at £1 million per week? Is that figure nearly correct?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is quoting a statement in a newspaper for which the Minister is not responsible.

In view of the cost of these operations, which has been publicised in certain parts of the world, and the fact that the Director of Operations in North Borneo, Major-General Walker, has stated that they will continue for 10 years unless a political solution is found, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give a little more exact information than he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Washington (Mr. Shinwell) a moment ago about the nature of the political offensive that is going on? Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what success he hopes to get from that in order to avoid this expenditure?

The short answer to that is that the prospect of a political solution would not be furthered by the abandonment of our military responsibilities.

Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that although Australia has indicated for some considerable time a major responsibility for the defence of South-East Asia, Australian contingents have not yet arrived?

A Question dealing with that was not asked. The Answer may be given to that Question later.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my supplementary question, may I ask whether he recognises that if the weekly figure I gave is correct the expenditure on military operations in the next 10 years will be £500 million? Would the right hon. Gentleman look forward to that kind of expenditure arising if his Government remain in power over that period? Will he realise the importance of taking political action?

These are serious problems and they are not served by drawing huge figures from the air. The Question on the Order Paper asked what the cost was and I say that the extra cost of having these troops in the area, that is, their transport, certain works services and overseas allowances for troops who otherwise would not be there, is £3½ million up to 31st March, 1964. I do not think that this is an unreasonable sum for honouring an obligation to an ally.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many technical costs officers he employs; and if he will state their total annual salary.

None, Sir. Technical Costs Officers are employed by the Ministry of Aviation and we make use of their services. Also, certain staff in the Navy Department of the Ministry of Defence carry out technical costing on contract work as part of their normal duties.

In the light of this situation, in the Minister's opinion is there a sufficient number of technical costs officers in the Ministry of Aviation to avoid another Bloodhound situation?

If the hon. Member wants to ask about the numbers of this grade of the Civil Service in the Ministry of Aviation, he should put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and get an answer to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in HANSARD an approximate assessment of the comparative value of the emoluments of the various national contingents, including the British contingent, serving under United Nations command in Cyprus, taking into account scales of basic pay and allowances, deductions for pensions and national insurance, and the cost of living in their home countries.

This information is not available and could not be obtained without considerable research into not only the pay codes but also the cost of living of the countries concerned.

Why is such very considerable research needed simply to ask the embassies concerned—or however it would be done—to provide this information?

I can answer for what happens in this country, but to have to answer about the basic scales of pay, allowances, deductions for pensions, national insurance, and the cost of living in a range of other countries really requires quite a lot of research.

Does not this underline the supplementary question which I put a few moments ago? I hope that my right hon. Friend will consult with his colleagues about this and really press the matter at the General Assembly of the United Nations next autumn.

I will certainly do that. I fully recognise that it would be much simpler from my point of view if they were all paid the same, but I hope that the House will recognise my difficulty in this and the need to try to pay people, serving overseas from this country the same rates whether they are in Borneo or Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is aware that some United Nations forces in Cyprus, other than the British, operate duty-free;hops for their troops; and what steps he proposes to take to provide similar facilities for British forces.

I am informed that ail the United Nations contingents are operating their own canteen facilities. This includes N.A.A.F.I. in the case of the British contingent. All these canteens enjoy the benefit of duty-free goods under the Status of Forces Agreement with the United Nations or the Cyprus Treaty.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Canadian troops said that they would not come unless they could have a duty-free shop, and they pay very much less for their stuff than our troops do? I recognise the difficulties in this matter from my right hon. Friend's point of view, but will he make representations to the Cyprus Government about it? Why is it that only British troops seem willing to do their duty without special facilities or bribes?

There is a complication here. One lot of duty-free entry is secured under the Status of Forces Agreement and another under the Cyprus Treaty. There is something in what my hon. Friend says. I shall have a look at it and see whether there are difficulties which I can iron out.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what local overseas allowance is paid to British troops serving in Cyprus.

As the information requested consists of a Table of figures I will, with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not include this information with the other information which he gave in reply to Question No. 33 last Wednesday, in which it was asked for? Was this because the local overseas allowance for British troops is only 15s. 9d. a week as compared with the £7 paid to the Swedes?

I am sorry if I did not circulate it if it was asked for. I would willingly have done so. The hon. Member will see that it is fully set out and is fairly comprehensive. He is right in saying that on balance, although comparisons are difficult to make, they are not as well paid as are members of services of other nationalities.

Does not my right hon. Friend think it time that the whole question of the payment for military services offered by countries to keep United Nations peace in various parts of the world was fully discussed at the General Assembly, perhaps this autumn, by some suitable committee and that some form of universal cost was agreed upon? Is it not true that at present those nations which are generous enough

That may be so, but the question is perhaps more appropriate to the Foreign Secretary than to me, as it deals with the United Nations. The point that I made last week on this matter was that, as far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned, I am rather in a difficulty in this in differentiating between the pay to the same type of men—British soldiers—in Cyprus and indeed in one overseas theatre compared with another.

While recognising the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, may I ask whether he would answer the question that I put to him last week, which was whether as Secretary of State for Defence he would ask the Foreign Secretary to raise this matter in the United Nations, because this seems to be the only just way of solving the problem of removing these very serious anomalies which are damaging the morale of our troops?

I have no doubt that this question will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Why do not you do it?

Order. That is not even a question rightly addressed to the Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish the alternative proposals for a multilateral nuclear force which he put before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial Council on 17th December, 1963.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) of 15th January and my comments during the defence debate on 26th February.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he allowed the Foreign Secretary to bury these proposals within hours of their being made? Is he aware that many Members on both sides of the House believe that the proposals he made, though perhaps imperfect, form a much better basis for discussion of nuclear sharing inside N.A.T.O. than the setting up of an entirely new multilateral force?

There is no question of their being buried. They are being actively pursued in Paris at the present time by our representatives there, where we are asking that full study should be made of the possibility of mixed-manning weapons, which nations are going to buy anyway, rather than those which will have to be constructed specially for the purpose.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government have still made no commitment to join any such multilateral nuclear force?

Yes, I can give that absolute assurance. There is no commitment at all on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

:: Since these proposals are apparently under discussion, could the right hon. Gentleman clear up a question which worries many of us? How does he think it is possible to introduce mixed-manning into the TSR2 aircraft?

It is not necessary to mixed-man a single aircraft. Experi- ence has shown in past operations that it is perfectly possible to have mixed-manning of squadrons if this is desired. This is a perfectly practicable thing. Nor were our proposals limited to aircraft. A certain number of manned missiles are being bought anyway in Europe some of them of long range—and these could be mixed-manned, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there is a Royal Air Force requirement after 1968 for an aircraft possessing the general operational characteristics of the United States F4J Phantom powered by the Rolls-Royce Spey engine.

The primary rôle of the Phantom is as an interceptor. The Royal Air Force needs an aircraft of this type now and this will be met by the Lightning Mark 3 which is being introduced this year. This requirement will continue after 1968. For its strike rôle in close support of the Army, the Royal Air Force required an aircraft with VTOL capability and this will be provided by the P1154.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if le is aware that the concept of a common aircraft has made some progress recently in the United States? Does he appreciate that both the United States Air Force and the United States Marine Corps, both of which have ground attack capabilities, have adopted the Phantom, and is it not rather a pity that the Royal Air Force requirement in this respect is so divergent from that of the other Services?

This is a fact of life, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows. We went into do question of a joint aircraft for the R.A F. and the Navy in the longer time-scale and we found that this could not, alas, be done. The point here is that in the shorter time-scale we need an aircraft now, and the Mark 3 Lightning will be coming into service this year.

asked the secretary of state for Scotland how many houses in Scotland qualify for improvement grants; and what is the annual rate of applications for such grants.

:About 450,000 houses in Scotland lack one or more of the five standard amenities The actual number which would qualify for improvement grant depends on the condition of the individual houses Improvement grants are currently given for about 4,000 houses a year

can the hon. Gentleman tell me—I cannot work it out quickly enough myself—how many years it would take to get all these houses up to the required standard at the present rate of progress?

It would not be possible to make that calculation because a large number of these houses are unfit and will be demolished and, therefore, are not apt for improvement The Housing Bill which we have recently been considering makes arrangements for speeding up improvement and gives further powers to local authorities to that end

Does the hon. Gentleman realize that, on the present rate of demolition of slums, it would take 50 years, and at the present rate of improvement it would take 100 years? What do the Government intend to do about speeding up the process, quite apart from passing bills? They have got all the power they want Why not get on with the job?

I dissent from the hon. Gentleman's calculations because, as I pointed out, one cannot make that assumption since the figures I have given includes unfit houses as well as those for improvement

asked the secretary of state for Scotland what is the estimated price being paid for land for housing purposes by local authorities; and what was the comparable figure in 1951 and in 1955

My right hon. Friend regrets that he does not have this information.

Could not the hon. Friend to procure it? Would it not be quite easy to ask the major housing authorities or a representatives number of housing authorities for the information? It could be got in a fairly short time, and it is very important to know what the increased burden on local authorities is.

There has been no justification to date for the effort and expense of a comprehensive central record of local authority transactions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities can acquire land without my right hon. Friend's approval. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about high prices of land, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend keeps a close watch on this and he has enough information to keep him abreast of high prices, without all the data which would provide answers to the particular questions which the hon. Gentleman asks.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the growing number of house fires and consequent danger to life and property, he will circularise all local authorities, new town corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Associations, asking them to submit all housing development plans to fire prevention authorities for their approval; and if he will make a statement.

Up-to-date structural requirements to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire and to assist escape are contained in the new Building Standards Regulations which will govern all house-building, both by public and by private agencies, from 15th June.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in 800 Scottish Special Housing Association houses 16 people have died and eight have been seriously injured as a result of fire? As the number of these houses is smaller than the number of municipal houses, will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that there is thoroughly effective and efficient co-operation between housing authorities, on the one hand, and the fire prevention authorities, on the other, in order to safeguard the lives of our people?

I agree that, where special knowledge is required, the Fire Protection Association and other bodies should be consulted. My right hon. Friend is as concerned as the hon. Gentleman is about recent accidents, but the new Regulations, when they come into force, will include up-to-date advice on fire precautions from those in the best position to give it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to establish funds with a view to grant-aiding general practitioners who are prepared to provide up-to-date surgery accommodation and services, with a view to promoting an efficient family service; and if he will make a statement.

The Health Departments are already discussing with the profession better means of encouraging general practitioners to improve practice accommodation and services; and I have no doubt that this will also be considered by the Working Party on General Practice.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many general practitioners' surgeries are far from satisfactory? Does he realise that even in some new surgeries recently constructed there are not even simple facilities such as an examination room because even a team of doctors are unable to afford them? Will he introduce some means of helping general practitioners to provide for the people who have to use them up-to-date surgery facilities in order to develop a more efficient family practitioner service?

It is only fair to point out that about £265,000 has been lent, interest-free, to help about 100 groups of doctors in Scotland to provide new or improved professional accommodation. I think this is a step in the direction urged by the hon. Gentleman.

Does not the Minister realise that in some cases people still have to attend surgeries where there is no suitable sanitary accommodation and no suitable waiting accommodation and where conditions are quite primitive? Will he take urgent steps to see that the example of, for example, Stirlingshire, where the local authority is building surgeries along with clinics, is followed throughout Scotland as soon as possible?

I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I feel that we are making progress in the direction which he wishes.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the National Health Service Act, 1946, sets upon the Secretary of State the responsibility of providing health centres in Scotland, as opposed to tile arrangement in England where it is the responsibility of the local authorities to provide health centres? As the Secretary of State has failed in his duty in this respect, what does he now propose to do for the future?

I have been profoundly impressed by at least one health centre which I have visited in Scotland and I very much hope that there will be a considerable extension of this development. In all the new towns it is being tackled.