asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that sufficient warships are available to provide escorts for Commonwealth merchant ships sailing in convoy in the Indian Ocean, should this become necessary as a result of a deteriorating political situation; and if he will make a statement.

There are many possible contingencies of varying degrees of likelihood in this vast area. Of course we plan to deal with them to the best of our ability and resources, in concert with our allies and in accordance with our general defence policy and strategy. It would, however, not be in the public interest to disclose our detailed plans for dealing with the different threats.

Will my hon. Friend accept two propositions following that partly unsatisfactory Answer? Is it not necessary from now on that a convoy should be accompanied by an aircraft carrier if it is to be defended against a threat by surface craft carrying surface-to-surface guided missiles? Secondly, with our present forces in the area, is it not very difficult indeed to protect a convoy from the threat of nuclear submarines?

I should have thought that the probability of convoy is limited mainly to conditions of general war. The naval resources we have in the area east of Suez have been steadily increased in recent years and, of course, we keep under constant review the need for any further reinforcement. My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on his two propositions nor to tell him what we have in mind against any possible threat.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great many people think that our naval forces east of Suez are quite inadequate to meet the responsibilities which are ours and that the fact that the United States has decided to have a naval presence in the area now would appear to make that quite clear?

I think it unlikely that any of our possible adversaries in the area share the hon. Member's view.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when tenders are to be submitted for the construction of a new aircraft carrier.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is now intended to lay down the new aircraft carrier; and when it is planned that she will join the fleet.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress of the new aircraft carrier.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his programme for constructing and equipping the new aircraft carrier.

Detailed design work, research and development are in progress. We hope to be in a position to invite tenders for the construction of the new carrier in the spring of 1966. It is too early to forecast the date of the keel-laying, but our aim is to have the new carrier fully operational in 1973.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been rumours in the Press of some delay? Can he give a categorical assurance that this aircraft carrier will reach the Fleet as planned, on the date planned, which obviously he cannot disclose?

I cannot add to my Answer. Our aim is to have the carrier fully operational by 1973, and everything is now going very well to plan.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the rundown in our shipbuilding industry which has been taking place over the last four or five years and of the importance, from the point of view of maintaining continuity of employment in our shipyards, that the keel should be laid as soon as possible?

From all accounts I thought that the position of the British shipbuilding industry was improving substantially Certainly we cannot improve upon the programme which I have mentioned, be-caused a great deal of detailed work has to be done before we can go out to tender.

Bearing in mind that this carrier is to be equipped with American Phantom aircraft and that already £150 million worth of orders for American equipment have been requested for the Polaris submarine, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that all the other equipment for this new carrier will be of British make?

I do not know. I should like to see that question on the Order Paper. There will be a number of items of equipment which might be of American or other foreign manufacture, or employing American or other ideas, but I should like to see that question on the Order Paper before giving a detailed and categorical answer to it.

Does not the anxiety expressed in these and the first Question on the Order Paper indicate how right the Government were to have a new aircraft carrier and to emphasise the importance of increasing this programme?

I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I think that we have the right programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to a programme of fast patrol boats armed with surface-to-surface missiles; and what decision he has reached.

The need for craft of this type is under constant review by the Navy Department, but at present we have no plans to build any.

Is my hon. Friend aware that others seem to be relying increasingly on these craft, which have considerable range and fire power? Will he continue to keep this under constant review as it may well be a cheap answer to some of our problems?

Yes, Sir. As my Answer said, we are keeping this under constant review, but at the moment we have no immediate plans for these craft.

Are we to assume from the hon. Gentleman's Answer that this is one of the sacrifices which we have to make in order that the Government may proceed with the Polaris programme?

No, Sir. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wildly wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the placing of orders for new ship construction is being delayed by the shortages in certain categories of naval skilled manpower.

None, Sir.

Are we to understand from that that the Admiralty never considers whether it will be able to man a ship before building it? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that cruisers are at present laid up because we do not have the manpower and that in February 60 commissioned ships lacked the necessary skilled manpower and that we are now to absorb about 1,000 skilled men into the Polaris programme? Does he mean to say that this makes no difference to the Admiralty's consideration of ship construction?

I suggest the hon. Gentleman looks again at his Question. He wanted to know whether the placing of orders for new ship construction was being delayed by present shortages in certain categories of manpower. It takes a good many months and even years to build a ship and we are planning for the crews to be there when the ships are built.

Would it not be better to plan for the crews to be there for the ships already built?

The point is that they are there.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what naval construction programmes are being held up because of the Polaris programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications he envisages in naval construction programmes in order to facilitate the construction and equipping of the Polaris submarines.

The only construction programme which is suffering, or which I expect to suffer, significant delay because of Polaris is that of the nuclear hunter-killer submarines. As my predecessor informed the hon. Member on 10th April last year, there will be some shortfall in hunter-killer numbers round about 1970 but it should be possible to make that up by 1975.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as has already been stated two or three times this afternoon, there is a widespread feeling that our Forces are far too thinly scattered over far too wide an area and that naval construction programmes are diminishing, which many people attribute to the Polaris submarine? Are we to assume from the fact that he has said that there are no significant delays, except in the hunter-killer programme, that this is in fact true?

The Answer means what it says. The effect of the Polaris programme upon the conventional Navy is comparatively small and I made that perfectly clear in my speeches on the Navy Estimates earlier this year. The only programme which is being delayed—and we have never made any secret of this—is the nuclear hunter-killer programme. The rest are going along in the normal way.

Is there not a strong body of senior naval opinion which has grave misgivings about the delay in the hunter-killer construction programme, particularly bearing in mind the political uncertainties of the delivery from manufacturers of the missile with which the Polaris submarine is equipped, remembering that it is manufactured completely in the United States?

The only opinion on these matters which I have heard is one which is extremely anxious about the future position of this country if the Opposition were ever able to implement their threat to abandon the Polaris programme.

Has any estimate been made of the cost and of the strategic implications of the unhappy event of the policy of the party opposite to abandon the Polaris programme ever being implemented?

It would probably cost at least £100 million—probably much more—and it would enormously dislocate our training programme and the damage which might be done to Anglo-American relations is incalculable.

Is not the truth of the matter that the Navy does not want and never has wanted the Polaris submarine, which has been foisted on it, and that all its anxiety is that the ships it wants are being held up for a ship which it does not want?

No, Sir. That is diametrically opposite to the truth.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to firing control of nuclear missiles from mixed-manned vessels in view of current American policy that there will be no special rôle played by American officers in firing decisions; and, in view of the difficulties that are now becoming apparent particularly in regard to the exercise of control of nuclear missiles by West German officers, if he will give an assurance that he will oppose the future development of a mixed-manned force.

All these matters are the subject of discussion in the Paris Working Group. No decisions have yet been reached there and Her Majesty's Government remain uncommitted to the M.L.F. project. It is, however, our assumption that an American veto would apply.

Yes, but how does the Minister interpret the recent statement of the United States Administration

"that there will be no special rôle in firing decisions by an American officer on board any ship"?

It is not for me to answer for statements made by the American administration, but the quotation which the hon. Gentleman has read would be consistent with everybody having a veto.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total annual cost to his Department of maintaining the naval recruiting office in State House, Holborn.

About £51,000 per annum of which £43,950 consists of salaries and wages of the 37 Naval and civilian staff. The cost of the Directorate of Naval Recruiting and Naval Careers Service, which is part of the Navy Department Headquarters, also accommodated in State House, is not included in these figures.

Will the Minister say what portion of this staff is responsible for the mere 168 recruits which the centre has so far obtained? In view of the fact that the rent of this accommodation is £12,750 a year, does not it appear that there is a great deal of extravagance? Might not the Navy consider doing its recruiting rather more cheaply?

Perhaps I should have made clear to the hon. Gentleman in my reply on 13th May last that the rent of £12,750 a year is the rent of all the accommodation in State House occupied by the Navy Department and not just that part occupied by the recruiting side of it. There are a number of organisations situated in State House. We found that in the first six months of operation we had approximately 10 times as many recruits, and well over 200 times as many applications and inquiries as in the comparable six-month period last year before we actually occupied this new building, so that I think we are doing jolly well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now formulate a requirement for a strategic jet transport aircraft to meet the needs of Her Majesty's forces after 1970.

Requirements in this field are already fully provided for until the mid-seventies. Requirements for the latter half of the seventies have not yet been submitted for my approval. I am, however, in the early stages of considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation what kind of strategic aircraft we might need beyond the next decade.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Aviation told me last week that, in certain cases, it takes up to 10 years between the formulation of a requirement and the plane coming into service? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we have enough transport aircraft now on order to meet our requirements in the mid-1970s and beyond?

We have aircraft planned or on order for the mid-1970s, but we are considering various possibilities beyond that period.

Is it not the case that 13 years of Conservative Government have not produced for Transport Command a single strategic freighter, if one excludes the limited cargo-carrying capacity of passenger aircraft? Is the Government's death-bed repentance to be effective?

The Belfast is surely a strategic freighter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Belfast was successfully demonstrated at Northolt today and that three will be flying by the Farnborough Air Show?

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the very modest planned development of Transport Command ever the next 10 years and that the increasing need for flexibility and mobility will be met by this development?

The development is not modest. It includes the Belfast, the VC. 10 and the OR.351. This is a vast and necessarily expensive programme that is well in train.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what British Forces are now engaged on overseas duties in Western Germany, Malta, Cyprus, Southern Arabia, Malaysia and British Guiana.

About 130,000.

Is not this a great strain on our resources? Would it not be desirable to concentrate on trying to find democratic political solutions to the problems which involve the use of these troops and, where it is necessary to quench bush fires, to make that an extended responsibility of the United Nations?

It is about 35 per cent. of our Forces, and I think that most hon. Members will agree that they are doing their job extremely well.

Is it not a fact that British Forces could not be so widely dispersed in carrying out peace-keeping operations if we did not possess in this country independent means to defend the homeland against the threat of nuclear attack?

Certainly the most damaging blow which could be delivered to our defences would be to remove the capacity to defend ourselves.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that our Forces are stretched at the moment and that it would be very much better for him to meet that criticism rather than to try to shelter behind these British Forces whenever he is criticised?

I would have thought that the events of the past few months had demonstrated beyond contradiction that we were meeting it and meeting it adequately.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, how many British troops are now operating in the Yemen; to which units they belong; and what is the number and nature of the casualties they have sustained.

None, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, how many British troops are now operating in Cyprus; to which units they belong; and what is the number and nature of the casualties they have sustained.

The strength of the British Army in Cyprus is today about 5,800, of which about 1,900 are part of the United Nations Force. The major units in this element consist of 1st Bn. Inniskillings, 26 Medium Regiment and two squadrons of the Life Guards.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that detailed reply, may I ask him to say how long it is expected that those British troops will remain there, and if the answer be until their objective be attained, will he define what his long-term and short-term objectives are in this instance?

Not, I think, in answer to this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the modified multilateral nuclear force proposals which have been submitted for study within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Proceedings in the Paris Working Group are of course confidential but I can say that work on the British ideas is continuing. Essentially we have suggested that consideration should be given to the mix-manning of airborne and land-based nuclear weapons as part of the general examination of the MLF project.

I appreciate that these discussions may be confidential, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called British proposals have been widely discussed in the Press in this and other countries? Can he explain how that comes to be? Does he not think that, in these circumstances, an authoritative statement of Government policy to this House should be made in order to correct any misapprehensions? Secondly, will he confirm or deny that the proposals we put forward include some measure of mixed-manned surface ships carrying nuclear missiles?

The statement I have made is entirely authoritative, and I have no objection to discussion of it in this House or in the Press. All that we have suggested is that, in addition to considering the mixed-manning of surface ships to which a great deal of attention is being paid, it would be sensible to consider the possibility of mixed-manning some of the weapon systems that people were going to buy anyway, and this may achieve their political objectives much cheaper than any other method.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the consideration of a mixed-manned force, we are offering the suggestion that the British V-bomber force could well form a basis for something of this kind?

We certainly consider that aircraft, either existing or planned, could be incorporated in a system of this nature.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what differences exist between the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force staff requirements for the Wessex Mark V and the Wessex Mark II helicopters, respectively; and whether it is intended to standardise on a single type of helicopter for use by all services in the commando-carrying rôle.

For practical purposes the two helicopters are the same except that the Mark V is equipped to operate from ships in the assault or antisubmarine rôle. In other rôles they can be, and are, operated side by side.

Is my right hon.Friend aware that Wessex Mark II helicopters often have to land on naval commando aircraft carriers but that at the same time there may be slight difficulties about their being struck below and that they cannot be properly maintained on the flight decks of the carriers?

I will examine the point that my hon. and gallant Friend has made. So far as I know, there is no difficulty in operating these helicopters, cither off the ship or the land. Anyone who has had the opportunity of seeing what is going on in Borneo would know that they are, in fact, operating in the same rôles and side by side and very well together.

Would my right hon. Friend, while looking at that point, agree that where we have a Mark V helicopter which has a folding tail unit and can therefore be struck down below, this is obviously far better, because the type of helicopter required for commando-carrying and for the Air Force is exactly the same, and it might be difficult to do rotor tolerance maintenance on the flight deck? Will my right hon. Friend have a serious look at this to see if we cannot standardise these two types?

That is a perfectly good point and I am all in favour of standardising between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. I do not think that anyone would suggest that we should try to modify all the existing ones, but the point I am making is that they are, in fact, operating in the same rôles at the present time. I will bear these points in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the weekly cost of military operations in Aden and the Aden Peninsula.

It is impossible to give a meaningful figure for the cost of operations of this sort conducted by standing forces.

Does that mean that we are spending money in such a way that even the Minister does not understand how much is being spent? Can he tell us whether the cost of this miniature Suez is being paid by the taxpayer? Cannot he make arrangements to send the bill to the sheikhs and the oil interests?

The British taxpayer pays substantial sums for maintaining the defence forces of this country, and they are conducting themselves in a proper way.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the financial cost is modest, considering the sterling and British strategic interests involved?

That raises wider questions. It is clearly worth while to maintain defence forces and defence equipment adequate to protect this country.

In view of the desperate need for economic aid in this area, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how the figure for which he was asked in this Question compares with the amount of aid that is being provided for this area?

There is certainly a need for economic aid in this and similar areas, but if one asked the local inhabitants what was needed at the present moment, they would certainly say that the first requirement was defence.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what actions are being taken by the military forces in Southern Arabia affecting the civilian population's food supplies.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons he authorised the burning of food stocks in Radfan villages and the expulsion of the tribesmen and their families from their lands just prior to the sowing season.

We are dealing with rebels, armed, equipped and incited from the Yemen. We can and do use military action in certain areas, but in others it is better to deny the area to them. It is inevitable that crops should suffer and food stocks be destroyed in the process of excluding the rebels from their settled areas. We shall, of course, ensure that when these people submit to authority, they will not go short of food.

But is not that an admission that the food and livestock of very poor people are being deliberately destroyed, and that they are being prevented from sowing the next crop? Did the Minister himself approve this instruction, and is he proud of it?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should recognise where the blame for all this fairly and squarely lies. It is upon the enemies of the South Arabian Federation who are putting these rebels into this area armed, equipped, and with instructions to bring about its destruction.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is the most humane method of dealing with the situation, because villagers are not killed? Is it not a fact that they are warned by leaflet beforehand?

Yes, they are warned by leaflet.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the defence of Southern Arabia. Is he aware that the Radfan tribe was in rebellion against the sheikhdoms which were oppressing them long before the question of the South Arabian Federation ever arose?

I am sure that we should not interpret the hon. Gentleman's question as support of the Radfan tribe in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what his plans are for the build-up of conventional ground forces to enable them to protect British interests overseas.

Events in recent months have demonstrated that our conventional ground forces are fully capable of protecting British interests overseas already. No build-up is planned beyond making good marginal deficiencies in the Army by normal recruiting, which is going well.

May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that it is not the intention of the Government to reintroduce conscription, no matter what conditions prevail?

"No matter what conditions prevail" is rather a wide term. We have no intention of introducing conscription in the conditions which prevail, and which will, as far as we can see, continue to prevail for the foreseeable future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the evidence which was the basis of the allegation in his speech recently in the Rutherglen by-election that the Labour Opposition intended, when they formed the Government—as, of course, they will do in the course of the next few months—to reintroduce conscription?

It is not for me to defend the Labour Party. It is true that if a policy of really substantial increases in our conventional strength were to be argued it could be supported only by the reintroduction of conscription.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any shift of thinking in the policy of the Defence Department in relation to the recruitment of Gurkha troops. I suspect that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see this increased. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that should there be an abandonment of the independent nuclear deterrent by anyone who thought that possible, this would inevitably mean conscription and not just "perhaps"?

I have already said that I can imagine nothing more damaging to this country than the abandonment of the deterrent. The Gurkhas are doing a magnificent job, and I cannot foresee circumstances in which we shall be able to do without them, at any rate in the immediately foreseeable future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that our defence, under his guidance, will be much more effective than was his speech at Rutherglen?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is aware of public anxiety at the discovery by a walker on Dartmoor of a half-buried war-time dump of poison gas canisters and explosives; what record was kept of the dumping of such dangerous material at the time of its disposal; and if he will give an assurance that similar dumps do not exist in other parts of the Dartmoor National Park.

Yes, Sir. It has always been the practice of the Defence Department to dispose of unwanted material of this nature by dumping it out at sea. This dump was an unauthorised one of which no record exists. The material was probably buried by a unit during the war, but there is no means so long after the event of establishing who was responsible. I have no reason to believe that any other unauthorised dumps exist on Dartmoor.

Does not the Minister agree that this is a shocking example of the carelessness which the military authorities sometimes exhibit when taking advantage of their privilege to use Dartmoor? Will he take into account that the local people and others who use Dartmoor are very alarmed about this occurrence, and will he see that no such thing ever happens again?

Of course, this is a matter for concern, but we do not even know who it was who buried the stuff in this dump in the first place. It may not even have been a British unit. In any event, it was buried outside that part of Dartmoor which is in use for military training. I appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. I hope that not only hon. Members of this House but everyone else who sees suspicious objects will promptly report their suspicions to the military authorities.

Is not it a possibility that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) may have been responsible for this dumping immediately after the war?

Is it not unlikely that this was buried by a Secretary of State? Surely the Minister is taking this very casually? Is not it the case that it would be only a question of time before poison gas contained in a canister would escape? Is not that a terrifying situation and is not it inadequate just to be satisfied by saying, "We have not been able to find out who may have buried this"? It is a major scandal which really wants looking into.

I am not taking this lightly at all. Obviously this is a serious matter. We check all military sites and training areas for material which may be dangerous to the public before we vacate them, and we erect notices warning about the dangers in training areas still in use. This dump was found on common land outside the area of Dartmoor which we use for training.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman suggest in one of his replies to a supplementary question that it might have been a non-British unit which dumped this stuff? Was there anything about the markings on this dumped stuff which indicated that it might have come from some non-British unit?

The stuff was British, but there were many units in this country during the war and we just do not know who was responsible for burying these gas containers where they were found.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is aware that, in spite of recent undertakings by Service Departments that stricter measures would be taken to clear live ammunition and other litter and to mitigate damage by Service activities in the Dartmoor National Park, there have been a number of cases in the last few months of unexploded missiles, litter dumps and damage; and if, in the national interest, he will now seek an alternative training area of less recreational use and value than the Dartmoor National Park.

I have nothing to add to my Answer of 25th March.

Then may I ask the Minister to take account of the fact that I have in my hand a photograph of a large explosive bomb which was found at Beardown on 18th May, and that I have also another photograph? Is he aware that on 19th April a sack of missiles was found at Lydford Tor by boys on an adventure training expedition? Is he further aware that I have other examples which I will send to him? Will he take this matter seriously and ask the Army Council to consider the possibility of other places than Dartmoor being used for training troops?

Apart from the containers, which were the subject of the hon. Gentleman's first Question, all the misiles recently reported were expended—burnt-out shells or parts of shells—and completely harmless. We keep a constant check on the possible presence of dangerous missiles on Dartmoor. I am afraid that it is essential for us to continue to retain Dartmoor as a training area. It is close to where the Strategic Reserve and the Royal Marines are concentrated. If the Army is to be properly trained it is necessary for it to exercise on Dartmoor.

May I ask whether my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be a good thing if before making such sensational statements the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) took a little more trouble to ascertain what are the true facts?

A question asking the Minister to express a view on what is a matter of opinion is, on that account, out of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the estimated annual saving on the Defence Vote to the change from sea to air trooping.

Currently the saving is estimated as something over £10 million a year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to hon. Members on both sides of the House? In view of the very heavy demands made on R.A.F. Transport Command in recent months, will he convey to all ranks the congratulations of this House on the efficiency with which these duties have been carried out, and also on the outstanding safety record of Transport Command which excels even that of commercial airlines?

Yes, Sir.

While wishing to join in the congratulations offered to Transport Command, may I ask if there would not be a possibility for further savings if Transport Command were more fully utilised in trooping as distinct from independent air trooping contracts, and would it not also be advantageous if the Air Corporations were able to tender for this trooping work?

I think that there was an increase in trooping by Transport Command this year, and I think the figure is a satisfactory one. It is a matter for debate as to what further advance can be made, but the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) that it has satisfactorily carried out its work.

Can my right hon. Friend say when the carrying capacity of Transport Command will be further increased by the delivery of VC.10s?

In 1966.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied, in the light of recent experience and commitments arising simultaneously in different parts of the world, that orders for aircraft placed on behalf of Transport Command are adequate?

Yes, Sir, and I think that the smooth efficiency with which recent operations have been carried out has demonstrated that our plans were well laid.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the plans for married families of officers and other ranks of the Royal Air Force who have been unable, since December, to join their husbands in Cyprus; when he expects that they will be permitted to go; and what steps he is taking to reduce the hardships involved in the meantime.

Because of the uncertain situation in Cyprus, we have not felt able to allow any large flow of families to the island. We have, however, authorised a small controlled movement, starting this month. Provided the situation does not worsen, families will be able to go to Cyprus approximately six months after the husband's posting. If there are any cases of special hardship among the families who are waiting in this country I will see what can be done to help.

While appreciating the very difficult circumstances with which our Forces and their families have had to contend in Cyprus, I am sure that the House will welcome the decision to restart the flow of families to Cyprus. What is being done in the many cases where families have had to quit their existing married quarters, many of them having no alternative place to go to in this country? Is the Royal Air Force able to assist in these cases?

We are doing all we can to assist. In special cases of hardship we are moving families to other Air Force stations where they can find accommodation, but if any hon. Member raises any special case of hardship, I shall be very pleased to see what I can do.

I have recently returned from a visit to the Royal Air Force in Germany where I saw how much is being done to accommodate families out there. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's policy where it is humanly possible to keep families together?

Yes, Sir. The announcement which I have just made shows that this is our policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are cases of extreme hardship when a man is posted to Cyprus and his family has to vacate its married quarters in Britain? Can something be done with the Army, now that we have combined Services, to interchange married quarters and to alleviate the dreadful hardship which is inflicted on these families?

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I will certainly look into any means by which we can alleviate the problem, but we are doing all we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to prevent frauds involving fuel oil at Royal Air Force stations abroad, in view of the Fourth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts which states that over a period of four years only about two-thirds of the fuel paid for was actually delivered; and what estimate he has made of the financial loss caused by the inadequate control and laxity of administration.

Particulars of the way the fraud operated and of the relevant failures in administration have been sent to all commanding officers and officials concerned with fuel. The consumption of fuel oil in heating installations is now recorded at all R.A.F. stations so that the quantities ordered can be checked. As the House will be aware the loss at the station which was the subject of the Committee's Report is estimated at £30,000.

Is not this Report a scandalous exposure of inefficiency on the part of the Ministry? Can the Minister explain how these frauds could have gone undetected for the period of four years revealed in this Report and why orders for this fuel oil should have been 50 per cent. in excess of actual consumption? Were no records kept? Was there no control or check at the Ministry? Was not the inefficiency going down to the bottom right from the top?

No, Sir. I think that having looked at this case with care, I should say that the instructions were themselves adequate although not properly carried out. Those concerned have been reprimanded or punished in instances where the fraud actually took place.

Could the Minister tell us how many people were involved in this fraud and what precisely he means when he says that they were punished? Were any prosecutions undertaken?

Yes, Sir. I think that there were five persons involved who were punished. One was sent to prison for one year and discharged with ignominy, and higher up in the scale were officers who for laxity were reprimanded and have had serious adverse reports.

In view of the way in which this Question has been framed, which rather insinuates that this practice is very widespread, can the Minister tell us how many stations were actually involved?

One station was involved and we are also investigating a similar type of fraud at another station. Beyond that, we have no evidence whatsoever of this type of fraud being carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given in order to prevent a repetition of the two serious mishaps which have taken place during parachute exercises in Norfolk during the past two years.

A detailed examination is now being made of the safety criteria of all dropping zones. I have given instructions that the Bridgham Heath dropping zone is not to be used until this examination is complete.

I am grateful for that reply, but is the Minister aware that during an exercise just over a year ago paratroops were dropped straddling the main railway line when a train was coming along? Fortunately nobody was seriously injured, although some were slightly injured. Is he also aware that a few weeks ago a cargo of about five tons of dummy ammunition was dropped on a railway track in front of an oncoming train, which was fortunately stopped just before reaching the ammunition, and, further, that on neither occasion had consultations taken place between British Railways and those responsible for the exercise? Does he not agree that if we are to prevent derailment and perhaps serious incidents it is essential at least that consultations should take place between his Department and British Railways before these exercises are held?

I am looking into this matter. For the meantime I can give the hon. Member at least the assurance that there will be no droppings in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when United States Air Force personnel will vacate the air base at Sculthorpe, Norfolk; and what is to be the future use of this site.

The United States Air Force will finally vacate the station on 30th June, 1964, when it will be returned to the Royal Air Force. A possible Service requirement is still being considered.

We have had similar replies to this on a number of occasions and have been told that an announcement will shortly be made about the further use of this important site. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Wait for it and you will get the question.

Order. This is Question Time, and not the time for making a statement. It is not the importance of the question that matters; it is the fact that it is a question.

Is the Minister aware that this is a very valuable site, and that it employs hundreds of civilians who have no prospects of any alternative work in the area? Will he see that immediate consultations are held between the various Government Departments, to make sure that this site is put to the best possible use in order to provide alternative employment for the civilians who work there?

Yes. Consultations are going on at the moment and, as I said, I hope to be able to give a reply to the House shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a decision has now been reached on the use to which the installations at Greenham Common are to be put when the United States Air Force hand over this base at the end of this month.

There is no Service requirement for the installations at Greenham Common but the possibility of other Government use is still being considered, and I am in touch with the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether this means that the premises are now on offer to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and would then, presumably, be turned over to the local housing authorities for use?

The local housing authorities and local planning authorities are being consulted.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the consultations between his Department and the local planning authority about the future of the site at Swynnerton.

I understand that the Staffordshire County Council is considering a proposal to send a delegation to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to discuss the future of the site at Swynnerton.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are now approaching the seventh anniversary of the Government's announcement of the closure of the factory at Swynnerton, when the dialogue about these 700 acres began? Is it the case that we are now to go round and round the circus again, from Department to Department? Would it not be quicker to set up a Royal Commission?

I am as disappointed as the hon. Gentleman, but the latest delay is caused by the county council and it does not tie in with the assurance by the county council which the hon. Gentleman gave me the last time he questioned me on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet reached his decision on the future use of Pontefract Barracks; and what his plans are regarding the barracks sports field.

It is necessary to retain Pontefract Barracks for the time being but I will consider sympathetically any application by local bodies to use the sports field.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him how long is "for the time being"? It is more than 14 months since these barracks were vacated. Does not the Minister think that it is time that they were utilised for other purposes? For example, with slight modification—as the services are there—they could be used as a teacher-training college, or for the proposed scheme of the West Riding County Council as a college for sixth formers. In view of the shortage of playing fields in the Pontefract area, will the Minister give an undertaking that this playing field will not fall into the hands of the greedy speculative builder?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall not keep any barracks that we do not need for longer than we must, but the future of these barracks is tied up with the possible future moves of Army units, and it is not possible for me to say at the moment when they could be disposed of.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he will arrange for the Royal Engineers to build a bridge across the River Ouse at Selby, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, as part of their practical training;

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he condones the building of a bridge by Royal Engineers on a private estate, and yet he refuses to allow them to cut into monopolies which are getting tens of thousands of pounds tax-free income from the toll bridges in the areas that I have mentioned?

The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The bridge on the private estate, about which I gave the House a satisfactory answer the other day, was not built by the Royal Engineers. The Royal Engineers welcome opportunities to carry out civil engineering projects when these provide good training, but this project is not suitable.

Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will make certain that his reply this afternoon is brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport, and will he point out at the same time that he himself is not able to solve the problem, and indeed the scandal, of Selby Toll Bridge?

My hon. and gallant Friend is right as regards the Selby Bridge. Even if this were considered desirable training for the Royal Engineers, a bridge of that kind with a swinging span would be beyond their resources in a training exercise.

If the Minister refuses to consider the building of a bridge at Selby, will he consider the other one? Is he not aware that the R.A.F. personnel at Linton-on-Ouse are spending shillings per week out of their inadequate wages in tolls which are tax-free to the owners?

The position of the R.A.F. personnel who use this bridge—one end of which is in my constituency—is that if they are on duty, under the Act they are exempt from the tolls. When they are not on duty, they are in the same position as other civilians using the bridge. I am not sure that some of the tolls paid in the past need have been paid, and this is being examined by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will arrange for the Royal Engineers to exercise their practical training by building a bridge at Thorne, near Doncaster, to assist the traffic which at present uses a one-way swing bridge.

No. Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this bridge could not be built as a practical exercise? Is he aware that there is room for it and need for it and that the men who built it would be extremely popular in the neighbourhood? Is he aware that it might assist his recruiting drive?

Because of the planned operational commitments of the Sappers, it would not be possible for any of their units to take on a major construction project of this kind at the present time. It would be quite a major project, I understand, because the bridge would have to be above the level of barge traffic and therefore would require a high span.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he is aware that an 18-year-old Royal Army Service Corps driver, Leslie Chambers, was killed on duty in Cyprus on 8th May, 1964, and that, at the request of his parents, the body was brought to Wallsend, that the Army authorities refused financial help, and that the cost to the parents was £350, causing an appeal to be made to local people; if he is satisfied with the present situation regarding this matter; and, in view of these facts and the consequence that many people are unable to afford the expense of having the bodies of relatives in the Services who are killed abroad brought to this country for burial, what proposals he has to assist such people;

I am aware of the tragic death of Driver Chambers, and I should like to express my sympathy to his parents in their sad loss.

It is a long time since this matter was considered. After all is said and done, it does not matter what the subject may be—with time all viewpoints change. The question is a matter of importance for people in general, and this policy is rather bad in their opinion, because it makes a distinction on the question of the circumstances in which families can have the bodies of their relatives brought home for burial. The fact that it costs £350 to do this is rather a restrictive qualification, despite the freedom to do so, which applies only to a small section of the community whose members have incomes which enable them to accumulate a little bit of money for emergencies. There are millions of people who cannot accumulate money to such an extent as to pay to have the bodies of their relatives brought home. The policy in itself is limited. I am asking whether the time has not arrived for this matter to be investigated, so that people can have the privilege of bringing the bodies of their relatives home irrespective of their incomes. I am making a plea that this question should be examined.

We all sympathise with the hon. Member's concern about these cases. The matter was gone into by the three Services fully and sympathetically only just over a year ago. It was concluded that the present arrangements ought to stand, because to extend them would be to run the risk—because of the practical difficulties of repatriation to which I have referred—of being unfair in giving different treatment as between one case and another. I therefore felt that on the basis of that examination we should stand by the existing rules.

In cases where it is clearly impossible to bring a body back to this country, will my right hon. Friend consider flying out the relatives later to view the grave of the soldier concerned?

I will certainly consider that, but that question was also examined in the context of the last review, and visits of relatives were found to be a possible policy to sustain only in North-West Europe.

Although we can understand some of the arguments which the Minister has advanced, does not he think that the cost is very excessive for a parent who wants to meet the expense of bringing home the body of a relative? Surely the military forces could meet a case of this kind for much less than £350?

The difficulty is that military transport is not always available within the prerequisite time bracket. If as the Question suggests it came to a contribution towards the cost, part from us and part from the next of kin, we should run into difficulty because some next of kin might not be able to afford any of the cost. We have gone into this matter with immense care and I see no possibility of making progress from the present position.