asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to employment, average earnings and overtime working in Royal Naval Dockyards.

The employment position remains as forecast in the Defence White Paper of 1969, The average earnings of adult males during a typical week in June was £30·03 per week including 2·1 hours of overtime.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety in the dockyards at reports that more work is being put out to private contract when job opportunities are falling in the yards? Is he further aware that, because of the deplorably low level of earnings for many of these working men in the yards, there is no hope of their taking home anything near a living wage unless there are reasonable prospects for overtime, which are being cut back every day?

We have put one submarine out to contract. Nothing else is planned to go out to contract at the moment. In relation to the absence of overtime. there is a problem about the balance of trades and I am discussing this with the trade unions. I hope that we shall be able to resolve it satisfactorily.

Why was this submarine put out to contract? Was there consultation with the unions in the dockyards before it was done? Is not one of the problems of putting refits out to contract the difficulty in advance of estimating the work to be done and the pricing?

I had full consultation with the trade unions before the submarine was put out to contract, and I kept them informed. There was no way in which we could accommodate this vessel in the Royal Dockyards. The problem was once more that of the balance of trades, which has been one of the great difficulties of the yards. I am not wholly satisfied with the way things are, but I am doing the best I can to rectify the situation.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many persons are employed at Royal Air Force, Orfordness ; and what percentage there are of each nationality.

The figure is 386. Of these, 32·5 per cent. are United States nationals, and the remainder are of United Kingdom nationality.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his answer may well cause resentment in that, to accommodate foreign nationals, military or security personnel, local inhabitants have been told to keep away, local fishermen have been warned not to go within three miles of the establishment lest they get electric shocks, and overflying of the establishment is prohibited? Would he like to comment on this matter?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of State for Defence why special facilities were granted on an exclusive basis to the Daily Telegraph, to photograph Royal Air Force Station, Orfordness, after the issue of the D-notice ; and if he will grant similar facilities to all other national newspapers.

No special facilities were granted to the Daily Telegraph, nor is there a D-notice applying specifically to Royal Air Force, Orfordness. The photographs in question, which were taken entirely on the initiative of the Daily Telegraph, were submitted to my Department for security clearance in the normal way. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if, there is vagueness about an area covered by a D-notice, there is a tendency for that area to spread beyond the area absolutely necessary for national security? Will he be ready to define, not, of course, what is covered by this D-notice, but what is not covered by it, so that the rest of the national Press will be as well informed as the Daily Telegraph?

I think the Press have been quite openly dealt with on this matter. There is no specific D-notice applying to Orfordness. The station is covered by the terms of the general D-notice relating to photography at all military establishments. The Daily Telegraph observed the provisions of this D-notice.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what new form of military arrangement in Western Europe he envisages requiring higher expenditure by West European countries under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme.

The European Defence Improvement Programme does not involve any new form of military arrangement.

When does the Minister propose to announce to the House the plans outlined in his speech in Munich on 20th February regarding the European Defence Improvement Programme?

They have already been announced on 17th December, 1970, and in further detail on 17th February, 1971.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is his estimate of the approximate amount of expenditure that will be incurred by the British Government over the next five years as their share of the European Defence Improvement Programme of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he expects the increased combined military expenditure of West European nations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme to be met by other such West European nations, increasing their percentage gross national product military costs to the level of those in the United Kingdom or whether he expects all such West European countries to expend a greater percentage of their gross national product upon military projects.

asked the Minister of State for Defence by how much the United Kingdom military budget will increase on the basis that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme is implemented.

asked the Minister of State for Defence by how much he estimates expenditure by Great Britain will increase in the next five years under the European Defence Improvement Programme.

asked the Minister of State for Defence to what extent he estimates the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme wil linvolve extra expenditure by Great Britain over the next five years.

The 1971–72 Estimates together with the published Defence Budget targets for the following three years make appropriate provision for Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the European Defence Improvement Programme. This has been valued at some £76·5 million over the first five years of the programme. It is not for me to say how our allies are financing their contributions, although I must emphasise that this programme represents an increase in the military capability of the alliance.

Did not the noble Lord say in Munich that this programme would cost N.A.T.O. an extra one billion dollars over the next five years alone, and also that Europe would have to take an ever-increasing share of the burden? Is increasing expenditure to this extent a sensible way to secure East-West troop force reductions, if one wants them, as, presumably, the Government do?

I announced that the total European Defence Improvement Programme amounted to £175 million over the next five years. I am talking of pounds at the moment. This has been agreed by all the European members. I think that, till such time as one can achieve a balanced reduction of forces in Europe, it would be very unwise for Western Europe to lower its defences.

Is the noble Lord aware that this country is spending about 50 per cent. more of its gross national product on so-called defence? Does he not agree that it is time that this "umbrella, spats and no-breakfast" approach to defence matters came to an end?

We are spending around 5½ per cent. of our gross national product on defence, and this is money which is preserving the freedom of the Western world, and I think it is money very well spent.

Will the Minister tell the House to what extent Great Britain is involved in the increased contribution to the N.A.T.O. infrastructure programme as a result of our participation in this defence improvement programme?

Yes. The total United Kingdom contribution amounts to £76½ million, which is just under 19½ per cent. of the total planned expenditure.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is vital that we should spend this money in Western Europe and, indeed, increase our percentage of expenditure on the security of Western Europe, and would he not agree that there still remains a fair amount of work to be done and money to be spent in bringing our defences in Western Europe up to the standard we require to resist any possible aggression from behind the Iron Curtain?

Yes. This money will be largely spent on the hardening of airfields and the protection of aircraft, as is already undertaken on the other side, in the Warsaw Pact. The remainder of the expenditure will be to improve the communications system which is very necessary for Western defence.

Twenty years out of date.

Could the Minister say what criterion is used for the sharing of this burden between the European group of the N.A.T.O. Powers?

It is the criterion of N.A.T.O. defence expenditure burden sharing which has been in force, I think, since the inception of N.A.T.O. itself.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the programme of hardening airfields in particular is essential, because N.A.T.O. is a defensive alliance and must, therefore, face the first strike, so that it is particularly important that we should have aircraft secure on hardened airfields?

My hon. Friend has pointed to the main tactical and strategic reasons which have led the Government and other European members of N.A.T.O. to this decision.

Would the Minister confirm that in his Munich speech he made reference to a figure of one billion American dollars, and that he further said that this referred only to two defence projects, and that he subsequently described such expenditure as a small start in the process of burden sharing? Would he indicate what share is likely to be the burden on the British taxpayer of that one billion United States dollars, indicate to the House whether he was talking in terms of an American billion or a British billion, and give the sterling equivalent?

As I have already done the House the courtesy of laying my speech in the Library of the House, I am sure that the House will be able to see whether the statement which the hon. Member has read is correct, but it remains my view that as Europe achieves greater strength it is incumbent on Europe to play a greater part in her share of defence and not leave the overwhelming proportion of her defence on the shoulders of our American allies.

While strongly endorsing what my hon. Friends have said about the importance of pressing on with balanced force reductions and about the importance of a fair share of the expenditure between one European ally and another, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that one of the advantages of the European defence improvement programme is that, by protecting our aircraft, it raises the nuclear threshold, and, therefore, in the event of an emergency, gives a much better chance of a peaceful resolution of that emergency without recourse to nuclear weapons?

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very valid point. Going hand in hand with the proposals for the increased defence posture of the Western world is our desire to achieve balanced force reductions with the Warsaw Pact, and these two things are together very prominent in the policies which have been followed by N.A.T.O.

Will the noble Lord agree that the Soviet Union is continuing to spend an increased amount of money on military expenditure each year, and that, even with this small amount of added expenditure, the Soviet Union will have a preponderance still in all types of weapons, and would not my hon. Friend's efforts be better directed to persuading the Soviet Union to cut down its expenditure?

Get a European security conference.

I agree that expenditure in the Warsaw Pact on military equipment is increasing, and that this is a factor which we have to take into account. On the other hand, the Soviet leaders' response in relation to the initiative for balanced force reductions has been the first positive response which has been made, and I think that we would be right to follow it up vigorously with exploratory talks.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to his policy towards expenditure on armaments by the Western European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) on 17th December, 1970 and 17th February respectively.—[Vol. 808, c. 406–7; Vol. 811, c. 504–5.]

I thank the Minister for his extremely helpful reply, but will he tell us what are his views on the future prospects of armaments within an enlarged E.E.C.?

I believe that, if one can achieve a greater economic strength in Europe as the result of entry into the E.E.C., that will contribute to the influence which Europe can wield in the world and, therefore, to the strength of its defence arrangements.

Will my noble Friend say whether there has been a noticeable change in the view of the French towards N.A.T.O. in the last few weeks or months?

Not to my knowledge.

As the White Paper on British membership of the E.E.C. speaks of increased security if Britain joins the E.E.C., will the noble Lord tell the House what extra commitments in men, money and materials we intend to make to the defence of Western Europe on our accession to the Community, if we accede?

My answer to some extent echoes the words of the White Paper. I believe that greater political unity and greater economic unity will lead to a greater defence strength, and this is one of the factors which leads one to believe that the advantage lies with entry into the E.E.C.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what computer systems are in use or planned in his Department for pay, personnel, maintenance supplies and general administration ; and whether he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Member to Annex A to the Ministry of Defence Supplementary Memorandum of Evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology (sub-Committee A), and the Minutes of Evidence for Wednesday, 31st March, 1971. Current plans provide for the replacement of older computers and the enhancement of their systems where appropriate.

While I am grateful to the noble Lord for the elucidation of that matter, may I ask whether he has seen a report that the American Department of Defence has been using its computerised systems for the collection and maintenance of personal and political files on large numbers of individuals, and would the Minister give a categorical assurance to the House that nothing of this sort is happening in this country?

I take note of the point made by the hon. Member. The rules of confidentiality observed by the Ministry of Defence are designed to ensure that no unauthorised person has access to personal information stored in our computer files.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of cost of the proposed transfer of the Shoeburyness gunnery range to South-West Scotland.

We estimate that the cost of reproviding, at West Freugh, the facilities which it is hoped to move to that area from Shoeburyness will be not less than £20 million. Until plans are further advanced it is not possible to estimate what additional cost would be involved in reproviding elsewhere some defence facilities at present at West Freugh.

From the Minister's answer it is obvious that this cost does not include in the transfer of the R.A.F. unit the demolition of buildings. Is he aware that the transfer will ruin an area of great natural beauty and before taking a final decision will he make a cost-benefit analysis of the transfer?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it will ruin an area of great natural beauty, because there are already range facilities there. We have gone into this very thoroughly and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of local organisations are in favour of this move.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the R.A.F., while having no home as does a county regiment, is very much at home in Wigtownshire and has been for many years? In the last 10 years I have never had a single complaint about the R.A.F. bombing at West Freugh, and if the R.A.F. could provide 100 more jobs, we would put up with many more bangs not to have the guns.

I am sure my hon. Friend is right in what he says about friendship with the R.A.F. but, as he knows, other considerations arise here.

Is the Minister aware that, having served in the R.A.F. at West Freugh, I endorse all that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) said? Is he further aware that local opinion about this proposal is deeply and evenly divided, and should not there be a full public inquiry?

This is a matter which arises directly under Question No. 15.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what facilities are available in Great Britain to other European powers for the servicing of vessels carrying nuclear weapons.

No request for servicing facilities for such vessels has ever been received from another European power.

The Question does not ask whether any application has been received ; it asks what facilities are available. Does the Minister realise that what gives rise to this Question is the possible implication of any defence arrangements that may be secretly made in connection with E.E.C., the existence of a French nuclear weapon-carrying submarine and the fact that the American submarine Poseidon is being serviced at Holy Loch without any announcement being made to the House of Commons? There is, therefore, an understandable fear that similar facilities might be granted to a European Power without the House of Commons being informed.

There is nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement in answer to Questions on 24th May, when he made it clear that there were no discussions of any kind on Anglo-French nuclear arrangements during talks with the only other nuclear Power in Europe.

Will my hon. Friend agree that, should a request come from any European nuclear Power, we should accede to it with the greatest alacrity?

This is a hypothetical question. Any such request would, of course, be considered on its merits

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will introduce legislation whereby all Ministry of Defence buildings have to be approved by the planning department of the appropriate local authority.

No, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend see whether the procedure might be improved? Is he aware that the submission by courtesy to the local authority of the Army's plans is no satisfactory alternative? Is there any practical or strategic reason why plans should not be submitted by the Army as they are by any private individual or commercial body?

The arrangements under which we operate under the Circular 100 procedure have caused general satisfaction over the years. If my hon. Friend is dissatisfied with this arrangement, I suggest that he gets in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the military surveillance on the border between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Both the land border and the coastline of Northern Ireland are patrolled by the security forces to prevent the smuggling of arms and ammunition and any other illegal traffic which would jeopardise the security of the Province, but studies of methods of improving control of the border are in hand.

Does my hon. Friend recall the case of the seriously wounded I.R.A. gunman who was carried across the border only to die in the South? Does not this case and the many other cases which are brought to notice reveal that there is not a very extensive search of persons and vehicles, and is there any improvement in this regard?

As I have said, we are studying ways of improving the methods of surveillance of the border, but my hon. Friend will, I am sure, bear in mind that this is a very difficult task. There are over 300 miles of border and a great many roads, and we cannot seal off the border without a tremendous amount of effort at enormous cost.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is becoming an intolerable scandal that the Irish Republic, reputedly a friendly Power, is allowing its territory to be used constantly for training and refuge by people who are shooting our soldiers in the back? Will my hon. Friend say what arrangements there are between the security forces on either side to see that this is brought to an end?

I know that my hon. and gallant Friend takes a close interest in these matters, which I respect, but I am sure he will understand that it would not be in the interests of security to disclose specific measures under consideration or already in force. Of course, we naturally welcome co-operation with the Republic.

I thank the Minister for what he said but, in view of the nature of the questions being asked and the Minister's replies, what we should like to know is when this situation is going to end. The Army is doing a marvellous job, but its resources are strained by being there and it makes it difficult in Rhine Army. It begins to look as if the Army are there as a permanent garrison and that there will never be any political settlement. Can the Minister give us any guidance whether the Army is getting on top of the situation and whether any political arrangement will be made that can bring the Army out?

This is a very wide question which goes beyond my brief, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I have not a crystal ball, and I would mistrust looking at one anyway, but I am confident that the Army is capable of discharging its duties with a professionalism which is second to none. I do not find people's confidence being at all diminished in the ability of the Army to discharge those duties ; on the contrary, I think there is enhanced confidence.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the experimental gun firing undertaken recently in the West Freugh area of Scotland and what were the local reactions thereto.

Demonstration firings took place on 24th and 25th June at the request of the Wigtownshire County Council. There was some unfavourable local comment.

To use a colloquialism, the Minister can say that again. In view of the acute differences in the county council and the overwhelming opposition in the local community in respect of the noise nuisance, and also bearing in mind the negligible value of this project—a project which apparently is unwanted elsewhere in the United Kingdom—for employment purposes in Scotland, will the Minister give an assurence that he will not take a decision until a public inquiry is held?

In reply to the last part of the question, it will be for my right hon. Friend, in the light of the representations which have been made, to decide whether there should be a public inquiry. On the earlier part of the question, it is not true to say that local opposition is overwhelming. Wigtownshire trade unionists are in favour of the move because there will be more than 600 permanent jobs for civilians available at the range ; other bodies have indicated support for the proposal, including the South-West Scotland Tourist Association, the Stranraer and District Chamber of Trade and the Stranraer Town Council ; and the Wigtownshire County Council has also accepted the proposal.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the organisations which he has mentioned are mostly out of the sound of the guns and that I have a large file of letters which I shall be sending him shortly? I only wish that I could send him all the telephone calls I have received on this matter.

I shall be interested to receive all the information my hon. Friend has at his disposal.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, if this is the best the Government can do to solve the unemployment situation in Scotland, the people of Scotland will want no part in it? Will he now hold a public inquiry to prove conclusively what we are saying?

As was made clear in an earlier debate, this is not the principal measure we have for dealing with unemployment in Scotland. I do not think the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) is immediately concerned in this area, and therefore I do not feel that he speaks for the workers in it.

Was not the answer given by the Minister to the question about the need for a public inquiry absolutely pathetic? If there are local anxieties and fears, is it not incumbent on the Government at the earliest possible moment to announce a public inquiry? Will the hon. Gentleman recall that when there were similar difficulties in South Wales the Labour Government announced a public inquiry at the earliest possible moment?

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier reply, when I said that it would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide on this point.

That is what worries us.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what estimate he has of the number of oil tankers which in the last three months have been prevented from delivering oil by the ships and aircraft of the Beira Patrol.

No oil for Rhodesia has passed through Beira. All the tankers which would otherwise have been delivering such oil have obviously been deterred from doing so.

Would my hon. Friend accept that, misconceived as is the whole sanctions policy, there might be some conceivable logic in it if everyone were to join in? Within a week in which Zambia has announced that she is increasing her trade with Rhodesia, could my hon. Friend tell the House why Britain alone should bear the costs of this phantom patrol, which stops nothing? Does he realise that this has been going on for six long years and is it not time he assured the House that, whether or not agreement is reached with Rhodesia, this particular waste of money will cease?

As I have told my hon. Friend more than once, the question whether the patrol goes on is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend. Secondly, as I have told the House more than once, this is an obligation laid upon us by the Security Council of the United Nations.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that every national and international law-breaker will be delighted with the philosophy of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) that if we cannot catch them all we should never make any attempt to catch any?

I would only say that we have prevented oil going through the port of Beira, which was the obligation laid on the Royal Navy.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what has been the total cost to the country of maintaining the Beira patrol since 9th April, 1966 ; how many tankers have been intercepted ; how many have been diverted from Beira, and how many have continued on their way to that port ; in how many cases has an attempt been made to use force, and in how many cases has it been successful ; and what has been the effect of this patrol on the supply of oil and petrol to Rhodesia.

The extra cost is about £2¼ million. About 50 tankers have been stopped since April, 1966 and after inquiries all have been allowed to proceed. I cannot say how often force has been attempted, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the patrol has been successful in that no oil for Rhodesia has passed through Beira. This illegal régime has been denied the cheapest and most direct method of importing oil.

In view of the fact that petrol in Rhodesia is now not only unrationed but cheaper than in London, and in view of the fact that Foreign Office Ministers now accept that this particular method of carrying out the Security Council Resolution is not a requirement on this country, cannot my hon. Friend find better methods of utilising taxpayers' money and the matchless loyalty and discipline of the Royal Navy?

I do not accept that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made statements in that regard—

On 21st June.

I have studied the statement on 21st June. All that the Royal Navy is required to do is to prevent tankers from going into the Port of Beira, and that it has done.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think it obnoxious that the most loyal supporters of the Crown are seeking to support and encourage an illegal régime in rebellion against the Crown?

I never make comparisons, odious or otherwise.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what estimate he has now made of Harrier trials on the "Ark Royal".

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent trials of Harrier aircraft of the Royal Air Force embarked upon H.M.S. "Ark Royal" ; and what new assessment he has made as a result of the capability of the Royal Air Force to conduct air operations in support of the Fleet.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 122–3.]

What Harrier programme is now envisaged?

We are evaluating the results of the "Ark Royal" trials, and in the light of those we shall take our decision on any maritime use of the Harrier.

Do not recent events in the Mediterranean and the marked political instability in that area show the need for integral air cover for the Fleet? If that is the case, is it not about time that my hon. Friends got on with the task of providing such cover because, without it, many experts on this side of the House agree, as do naval friends, that the Fleet will be virtually defenceless in face of hostile air attack?

Experts on both sides of the House disagree on this sort of matter. I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish us to embark on a major spending programme until we have evaluated the results of the trials.

Would my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the military considerations, it is desirable to increase as quickly as possible our exports of this remarkable aircraft, and can he say when the Ministry will begin to reach a conclusion after some 10 years of trials?

We are all in favour of increasing exports of military potential.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress of the multi-rôle combat aircraft programme.

In accordance with arrangements agreed last year, we are now, with our partners, engaged in a review of progress of the development programme.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that external political pressures are not brought to bear on this project which is of such vital military, industrial and technical significance for British and European defences ; and will he assure the House that the purchase by the Luftwaffe of 200 F4 Phantoms in no way changes its intention to buy a significant number of M.R.CAs.?

I do not quite know what my hon. Friend means by "external political pressures", but this programme is extremely important. There is no reason to believe that the German Air Force has changed its mind about this programme.

Is not the estimated unit cost of the M.R.C.A. now above £3 million?

Any costs which have been estimated apply only to the early development phase, so that information is not available.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how much of the £4·5 million loan to Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited has been taken up.

The figure is £3·7 million.

Will the Minister concede that the mere granting of this loan has had a salutary effect in saving this portion of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Will he not prevail on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to be as generous, if not more so, in saving the whole of the consortium?

The loan to Yarrow was extremely valuable, and it is my understanding that over the years a great deal more money has been lent or given to U.C.S. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not a matter for me.

I also welcome the fact that money has been injected into Yarrows, which is a first-class shipbuilding yard. However, is it not a rather odd arrangement that the Ministry of Defence is injecting the money rather than the Treasury? In view of the fact that the Government, like Ceasar's wife, must be above suspicion, how will the hon. Gentleman satisfy other shipbuilders in other parts of the country that they will have a fair crack of the whip?

I am sure that other shipbuilders in other parts of the country have complete confidence in our fairness.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what was the total amount of defence expenditure and overseas aid in Malta in 1970 ; what estimate has been supplied to him of the money spent by personnel of Her Majesty's forces in Malta in 1970 ; and what he estimates to be the total expenditure under these three headings in 1971 on the assumption that the Government of Malta does not abrogate its defence agreement with the United Kingdom.

As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, arrange for it to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that most hon. Members deplore the gross discourtesy displayed by Mr. Mintoff in unilaterally cancelling the visit to Malta last night of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? Now that Mr. Mintoff has abrogated unilaterally our defence agreement with him, and since Malta is now virtually of no military value at all, should not we immediately cancel all overseas aid to that country?

As my hon. Friend raises the wider issue of the 1964 Agreement on financial assistance, and as a statement is to be made later today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, I ask my hon. Friend to await that statement.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the present shortfall of Regular officers in each of the three Services.

The shortfalls of male trained officers at 1st April 1971 were as follows :

Are not the figures that my right hon. Friend has just given a significant indication of a very serious situation, especially in the Royal Navy? Can my right hon. Friend say what plans his Department has for dealing with the situation?

The size of the Navy shortfall reflects the low level of recruitment resulting from the policies pursued by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. I am glad to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that, during the first six months of 1971, applications for the Royal Navy were 50 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period last year.

Is not that due to unemployment among young white-collar workers and school leavers who see no employment opportunities other than joining the Forces?

I think that the main reason is that, throughout the country, it is now realised that in joining the Services of the Crown, there is a future for people under the present Government. The improved recruiting is not confined to the Royal Navy. Applications for entry into the Army increased by 31 per cent. in the first six months of this year, and the number of applications for the Air Force rose by 72 per cent.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that increased numbers of young men electing to take commissions in the Services reflect their confidence in this Government?

They have confidence in this Government. They also have confidence that they have before them a career which is immensely worth while and one which is held in the highest respect throughout the community.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the traditional alternatives offered to the Scottish people by his Administration and their predecessors have been the Labour Exchange and the recruiting office? Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is because of high unemployment that he is getting his recruits?

In view of the shortfall two years ago, which was almost of drastic seriousness to the country, I think that there will be overwhelming support for and pleasure in the fact that recruitment to the Services is now increasing.

Reverting to the original Question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the present increase in the numbers of young men taking short service commissions in the Army is extremely satisfactory?

My hon. and gallant Friend echoes the views that I have been expressing myself.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the welcome improvement in recruiting figures is due directly to the military salary introduced by the previous Administration and that, in so far as recruiting has improved, it must be because this Government have now adopted the defence budget and the defence policies of their predecessors?

Why complain, if that is the case? Certainly I concede that the introduction of a military salary has been of value in encouraging people to join the Services.

Questions to the Prime Minister. Mr. William Hamilton.

rose—

On a point of order. I do not think that the clock yet says a quarter-past three.

It is for me to judge the time.