asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS "Ark Royal" to be withdrawn from service.

Our intention is that HMS "Ark Royal" should pay off at the end of this year.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what representations have been received from our NATO allies, particularly the United States, about the decision to phase out HMS "Ark Royal"? Secondly, will he tell us how long it will be after the "Ark Royal" has been phased out that the new through-deck cruiser will come into service, thereby telling us the period when there is no fixed-wing air support for the fleet?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that such a departure should be a matter of profound interest to our NATO allies. I was glad to be in a position at Easter to discuss the matter with the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, when I visited him in North Virginia. Like our other allies, he understands why we need to act in fulfilment of longstanding plans, especially in support areas. The first through-deck cruiser is expected to become operational in the early 1980s, and I understand that my right hon. Friend will be making an early announcement about a further through-deck cruiser.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with future arrangements for air protection for the Fleet in the 1980s?

Yes, Sir, because the responsibility for fleet air defence will be transferred to the RAF. When the Sea Harriers are deployed afloat, they will be used to complement land-based air defence forces and provide quick reaction capability. In addition, of course, we shall benefit from the mutual support that we receive from our NATO allies.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Navy proposes to keep in service for a further 20 years aircraft carriers commissioned at the same time as HMS "Ark Royal"? Can he advise the House of a single reason for the removal from the fleet of the one remaining conventional carrier, the most powerful ship in the Navy, without any direct replacement, other than the reason of the Government's defence cuts?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he will be the first to recognise that there is nothing I can say now in furtherance of the reply that he was given on this very question on 9th May.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we already have far too few air defence aircraft to protect even the United Kingdom, let alone to provide cover for the fleet until 1985 or beyond, when the ADV starts coming into service? Will there not be a severe gap in protection for the Royal Navy during that period, or will it not be at the expense of the United Kingdom itself?

No, Sir. There will be no such gap, on the basis of the reply that I have already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams).

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has plans to introduce a new low flying system for the Royal Air Force in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

As I told the House on 3rd April, the air force department of the Ministry of Defence is carrying out a review of the present low flying system in the United Kingdom. Some changes have been agreed in principle by the Air Force Board, but a great deal of detailed work has still to be done to verify the feasibility of these changes and to ensure that the low flying is dispersed as evenly as possibly and causes as little inconvenience to the public as possible. I will consider making a statement to the House in due course.

I am grateful for that somewhat limited reply, but can my hon. Friend tell us whether there is likely to be any increase in areas that will be affected by the low flying systems, and whether he will give maximum publicity to any new areas so affected and sympathetic consideration to any objections from some people who have particular interests against low flying?

The intention of the review is to seek to ensure that the RAF has adequate facilities in the United Kingdom to carry out its essential low flying training. The changes will increase the total area of the United Kingdom which falls within the low flying system.

Is the Minister aware that my constituents in Northumberland will welcome anything that he can do to spread the disruption caused by this necessary training as widely as possible among the whole of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, all of whom benefit from the defence capability which it enhances?

I agree entirely that all of the people who reside in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Western Europe, benefit from the ability of the Royal Air Force and other NATO air forces to be able to fly low and penetrate into a potential enemy's air space.

Will the Minister say whether, in his review, he will look at the question of compensation for loss of amenity caused by the noise of low flying aircraft, particularly over an area which may still be subject to having an operational air base in its midst? Will he also give some thought to the possibility of noise insulation being provided by his Department for houses which may be extremely badly affected?

Those matters are deserving of full consideration. As for compensation, people who suffer damage or loss resulting from proven activities of the RAF in low flying are entitled to make, and are asked by us to make, a claim to the Claims Commission. Such a claim will be properly evaluated and, if justifiable, compensation will be paid.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had discussions with the American Secretary of Defense and other Western Defence Ministers about the possible need for joint military operations to assist friendly countries in Africa.

I have discussed with the American Secretary of Defense and with the Defence Ministers of other Western Governments many matters of common and general interest, including, on occasion, current developments in Africa; but I do not believe that any consideration of joint military operations in Africa is presently either desirable or necessary.

Is not one of the lessons of Zaire that there should be joint contingency planning between various European Governments and the Americans, if they would join in, so that if a similar situation, unhappily, were to occur in future, a joint European rescue force could be sent at the request of an African Government?

That is a point of view, but I think that it would be extremely difficult to foresee all the various different scenarios, and difficult to get one group of European countries to agree to a common plan. Last week we were asked to consult the other countries involved, and we did so. That, I think, is probably the best way in which to approach that kind of situation. We were asked on humanitarian grounds to provide airlift and medical facilities, and we did so.

Is there not an absolutely critical difference between intervention in order to protect our own nationals and their security, and intervention in order to assist foreign Governments, which is what the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) is suggesting? Is that not precisely the kind of thing that led the Americans into the morass of Vietnam?

I certainly see a very clear distinction, as my hon. Friend indicates. Of course, it is open to sovereign Governments to ask other countries for military advice and assistance, but I think it would be right to judge each request on its merits as it arises.

Does the Secretary of State think that if the Government had to engage in a rescue operation involving British subjects, we would have the capability to carry it out?

It is very difficult to answer a question of that world-wide character, but I would think in most cases, certainly, yes.

May we take it that, on the very narrow issue of consultation with the British Government, the Secretary of State is wholly satisfied with what happened over Zaire?

I do not know that it is for me to express views which are more properly within the field of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but certainly I can say that from the time the Royal Air Force and the Army units concerned were requested, they were dispatched rapidly and did all that they were called upon to do.

Is there not an obligation upon the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State, to make contingency plans to protect British nationals and British interests, wherever they may be threatened, rather than giving the parliamentary reply that such operations are neither desirable nor necessary?

I think that it is certainly my job to defend British interests, but the proposition that any British national in any part of the world can demand military assistance became outdated at the time when Palmerston was Foreign Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the low basic wage rates paid to employees at Rosyth Dockyard and establishments such as HMS "Caledonia", HMS "Cochrane", and HMS "Lathalmond"; and what reply he has given.

I have received no formal representations but I am aware of the current campaign sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and of public statements made by the national officers of some trade unions about the need for improvement in the basic wage rates of the Industrial Civil Service as a whole. A claim for an increase for the whole Industrial Civil Service under stage 3 of the pay policy has now been tabled.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that when the mass lobby took place a fortnight or so ago, a large number of those people from Scotland were from Rosyth and the establishments mentioned in the Question? They claimed that their basic wage was about £32 a week. If that is the case, does he not think that that is quite scandalous? Can he say how that basic rate compares with average earnings?

The figures that I have in front of me show that craftsmen's average earnings are about £69 a week and that non-craftsmen's earnings range between £51 and £60 a week. The craftsmen's basic rates are about £51·50, including supplement paid under stage 1 and stage 2 of the pay policy. As my hon. Friend will be aware, under the pay policy, industrial civil servants have had the maximum amount by way of supplements ever since 1975, and there will be a new settlement date on 1st July next.

Will the Minister tell us what is the take-home pay of a semi-skilled worker at a dockyard in Portland? Is it a fact that it is about half what a worker of similar skills would earn in the motor industry in Birmingham? Will he tell us why this is so?

The hon. Gentleman puts his question in very general terms. One needs to know about the family circumstances of people before talking about their take-home pay. But the wider question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has now drawn up a full list of companies participating in the private arms trading fair at Aldershot in June and of countries to be invited to send representatives; and if he will publish these lists.

A provisional list of companies participating in the British Army Equipment Exhibition was published in the Official Report on 18th May. It is not the practice to release information about sales or potential sales of defence equipment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this arms fair coincides with the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament? Has he noticed Early-Day Motion No. 438, which calls upon Her Majesty's Government to demonstrate their devotion to disarmament, rather than to rearmament, by cancelling the fair and concentrating on the Special Session?

I have indeed noticed the Early-Day Motion to which my hon. Friend refers. I am quite confident that the initiatives that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are contemplating taking in New York will bear fruit. We need to keep these things in some sort of perspective. The United Kingdom is responsible for only about 5 per cent. of global sales of defence equipment.

Is the Minister aware that the Aldershot arms fair is of very great assistance in the export of British arms, without which, rightly or wrongly, the whole of our arms expenditure would be very much higher?

There is no question but that arms exports help to keep down the cost of equipment to the United Kingdom Forces, in so far as they relate to equipment that is being used by the Services. The Government want to see a reduction in multilateral transfers of armaments, but that has to come through agreement between both suppliers and customers.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Secretary of State has always maintained that the British Government's arms sales policy has always been a discriminating one? Will he therefore tell us to whom, apart from Chile and E1 Salvador, his Department will not sell arms?

Normally we do not give details of countries that are not eligible for sales of defence equipment, but the answer to my hon. Friend is "South Africa".

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in regard to the proposed arms exhibition at Aldershot; and if he will make a statement.

Letters have been received from Members of Parliament and members of the public, and Questions have been tabled in the House. The Government are aware that some people are concerned at the coincidence of the British Army Equipment Exhibition with the penultimate week of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, but are confident that this will not detract from the effort of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in New York.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that there is a real sense of hypocrisy here, in that we are having this arms exhibition at the same time as the world leaders are trying to get agreement on disarmament? Will he get together with the Secretaries of State for Industry and Trade to see how we can use the innovating skills of the workers involved in order to reduce the imports of finished and semi-finished manufactured goods and to produce socially necessary products along the lines of the Lucas Aerospace proposals?

No one is keener than Defence Ministers to see a reduction in the world's trade in armaments. Unfortunately, the world in which we live is such that it does not permit us to do so. The way to get a reduction in arms sales is through multilateral agreement with the major suppliers and customers. That is what my right hon. Friends will be attempting to do in their initiatives in New York.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the true author of this Special Session of the United Nations is my former colleague, Mr. Arkadiy Shevchenko, who, having realised the error of his ways, has now changed sides?

I am obliged for the information.

Is it not the proliferation of arms throughout the world which causes tragedies such as those we have seen in Zaire? Would it not have been far better if the Government had sought to limit the sale of arms rather than to promote it? If the Government cancelled the exhibition at Aldershot would not that strengthen their moral authority when they go to the United Nations?

I take the force of the first point made by my hon. Friend. Of course, the accumulation of arms carries risks in itself. But I cannot see that a self-denying ordinance by the United Kingdom—when other suppliers and customers have no intention of reducing either their supplies or demands for arms—would do anything other than contribute to further unemployment in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations have taken place with a view to providing alternative employment opportunities for those people who have lost jobs following adjustments to the defence programme.

Some overall loss of employment opportunities has inevitably resulted from reductions in the defence budget. It is not possible for the Ministry of Defence to provide alternative job opportunities in the defence industries within the present agreed level of defence spending.

Is my right hon. Friend acquainted with the procedures that took place in the United States in the wake of the Vietnam war, when the Government concentrated attention, funds and resources upon those areas that were deprived of defence employment? As a consequence, in many cases those areas are now extremely prosperous, due to alternative work. Is he further aware of the corporate plan produced by the Lucas shop stewards, which again shows great enterprise and points the way in which we could devote our resources and energies to civilian production, thereby creating employment as well as prosperity?

I am aware of both the matters to which my hon. Friend alluded. With regard to the Royal Ordnance factories and the dockyards—the defence procurement activities for which the Minister of Defence is directly concerned—there is no shortage of employment in either. In fact, they are fully loaded for some years ahead. The conversion of activity on the part of private firms is very much a matter for them.

Does not the Minister of State agree that if the Government would stabilise the defence programme and not keep cutting it there would not be so many jobs lost and the structure of advancement for people employed in the industry would be all the better?

It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that the Government have announced a 3 per cent. increase in the defence programme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now give up-to-date figures showing how many jobs and job opportunities in the Services and in civilian life—in industries and elsewhere—have been lost by the defence policy of the Government?

The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the up-to-date figures of the job loss in both cases. As I have told his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on many occasions, it is not the function of defence expenditure to provide employment as such. Defence expenditure is related to the necessary requirements of the defence of this country.

The right hon. Gentleman should answer the question. I quite agree that it is not the function of defence expenditure to provide jobs, but I asked how many jobs have been lost. What is the answer?

I have absolutely nothing to add to the answers which I have already given the right hon. Gentleman on that subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the British Defence Sales Organisation has for promoting arms sales to China.

The British Defence Sales Organisation is ready to respond to Chinese interest in British defence equipment, taking into account the usual political, strategic and economic criteria and our international obligations.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservative Opposition have no monopoly of opposition to the totalitarian ways of the Soviet authorities? Does he agree that it would be very foolish to cultivate the friendship of China merely as part of a crude anti-Soviet policy? Will he therefore think very carefully before the sale of arms to China is either promoted or authorised?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that no authority will be given without the most careful consideration. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already made clear that while we desire and seek to improve our relations with China we do not wish to do so at the expense of worsening our relations with the Soviet Union.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government do not see the People's Republic of China as either a hostile or potentially hostile country? Will he confirm that there is no bar to the sales of British defence equipment.

As I have said, no decisions on this matter have been taken. In fact, there have been no firm indications of which equipment is wanted. Everyone assumes that it is the Harrier that is likely to be wanted by China, but I have no reason to think that that is necessarily the case. China has given no firm indications of what it might be interested in. As no decisions have been taken, I cannot announce them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has no way of knowing how a customer State is likely to use any military equipment supplied by us to it? For instance, no one knows that it would not be used for an oppressive purpose. Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that British armoured vehicles were used to suppress the recent demonstrations in Tabriz, in Iran?

Whatever view may be taken about the sale of arms to China, somehow I do not feel that that would have a bearing on my hon. Friend's present concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the progress so far as it affects British defence policy, of the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks in Vienna.

Far from being satisfied, as I told the House in the recent defence debate on 13th March,

"I cannot conceal my disappointment at the lack of progress".—[Official Report, 13th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 46.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large measure of the blame for the lack of progress in these talks must attach to the Soviet Union? However, did he notice that in the recent Schmidt-Brezhnev talks, Mr. Brezhnev did indicate a slight movement in favour of force reduction in the central front area? Will he seek to build upon that initiative and do all he can to inject some urgency into these vital talks?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance and the desire for urgency. I noted also the communique from the Schmidt and Brezhnev talks and I hope that that can be followed up on the Soviet side. A great deal of the delay has arisen through the difficulty of getting from the Warsaw Pact countries the necessary data on which any agreement must be based. As is widely understood, there is a disparity because the Warsaw Pact forces are substantially greater in numbers than our own.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been no progress in Vienna? Will he do everything he can to checkmate the Russian design to prevent the cruise missile being deployed in Europe, as this weapon is essential to the future of NATO?

Discussions about the cruise misile do not arise in the Vienna talks. On that matter I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman.

Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's policy to achieve balanced force reductions and parity between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries? Will he explain how it is possible to move towards parity if there is no understanding about the respective forces mobilised in either NATO or the Warsaw Pact countries? Does he still think it feasible that we can negotiate on the basis of demanding from the Soviet Union a reduction of 250,000 troops, as against a reduction of 100,000 from NATO?

It is the Government's desire and policy to achieve balanced force reductions. However, before we can do that agreement is needed by both sides. Agreement is also needed on the numbers involved. On the NATO side, not only are the figures freely published; people can go and count them for themselves. The Warsaw Pact does not give the information the same publicity. In the negotiations it has not been possible so far to reach agreement on common figures on which further steps could be taken before we reach a balance.

Does not the attitude of the Soviet Union to date suggest that it is not keen on achieving arms reduction in Europe? Does not the Soviet Union's attitude towards the particularly strong tank forces on the eastern border of Western Europe indicate that the Soviet Union has no intention to negotiate on that matter?

It could be fairly inferred that if the Soviet Union wants progress it is hastening rather slowly. My hon. Friend's point in raising the question was whether we can infer—I think that it is too soon—from Mr. Brezhnev's remarks in Western Germany that a new political initiative will be forthcoming. We shall have to wait and see.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is not conducive to detente and disarmament for the Chief of the Defence Staff to go careering round the world describing the Soviet Union as the enemy, apparently with the full backing of the Conservative Party in this country, which means that it is a very important statement? Will he, therefore, state to the world that we do not regard the Soviet Union as the enemy and that we want peace with all nations?

I should correct my hon. Friend. To the best of my knowledge, the Chief of the Defence Staff has not careered round the world making these observations. He made one indiscreet and inaccurate remark on one occasion. The fact that the Conservative Party behaves as it does, is, I am happy to say, not my responsibility. I only hope that the British people will note the Conservative Party's antics in the House and will record their verdict when the time comes, so that the Conservative Party stays on the Opposition side of the House.

Talking about party antics, does the Secretary of State not agree that it is well known throughout the West how many Soviet troops are facing us on the Western Front? Does he agree that it is odd that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who is the treasurer of the Labour Party, should support the Soviet position?

On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, call upon the right hon. Gentleman to substantiate the comment that he just made?

Order. I could not hear the last remark of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). I know that the hon. Gentleman was protesting, but I could not hear him for the noise. I trust that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) was not making a personal charge.

I asked a straightforward question. I asked whether the Secretary of State could explain why the treasurer of the Labour Party—the Secretary of State had been talking about party antics—was supporting the Soviet position in the MBFR talks.

I wonder whether you could help the House, Mr. Speaker, in demanding that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) should substantiate a statement such as that. In the questions that I have put to my right hon. Friend, I have said nothing, implicit or otherwise, from which the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham could deduce my support for the Soviet Union against the interests of this country.

rose—

Order. The hon. Member for Tottenham has made his position perfectly clear. I deprecate personal attacks.

The fact that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) made the attack on my hon. Friend in the guise of a question to me in no way excuses the attack. My hon. Friend is in no way supporting the interests of the Soviet Union against this country. The dragging in of the fact that my hon. Friend is treasurer of the Labour Party will be deprecated by everyone in the House.

The Minister talked about party antics. I was explaining to the Secretary of State that the West knows perfectly well how many Soviet troops there are in Eastern Europe. The treasurer of the Labour Party pretended that that was not known and that it was a matter of doubt. That is the Soviet position. It is not the West's position.

Before we move to the next Question, may I say that I am assuming that there is no reflection at all on the hon. Member for Tottenham.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the regulations governing the redecoration of RAF married quarters to enable airmen to exercise an option of carrying out redecorations themselves.

Airmen are already permitted to carry out limited internal redecoration on a self-help basis, for which they can borrow, free of charge, materials, brushes and other equipment from the Property Services Agency.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, as far as it goes, but can he assure the House that when he reviews the situation there will be full freedom of choice of materials, colour schemes, and so on? Will he make certain that there are safeguards for the existing workforce?

I am deeply interested in trying to improve the quality of life in the Royal Air Force. Therefore, I take seriously the question of providing wider options for airmen to decorate their quarters. In the review that is taking place we shall take into account not only the views of the Property Services Agency but the views of the trade unionists employed by that organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from trade unions requesting recruitment facilities, in order to persuade members of the Armed Forces to join trade unions.

I have received one such request, from the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs.

Will my right hon. Friend look favourably upon the one request which he has received and upon other requests which he may receive, to allow trade unions to pursue a policy of recruiting members of the Armed Forces?

I listened to the full and fair statement by my hon. Friend yesterday on behalf of his union. As I have told him on previous occasions, until it is clear what trade unions could do for the Armed Forces I would not think it right to encourage a widespread recruiting campaign on the lines that my hon. Friend has in mind.

While I agree with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that if he had to meet trade union negotiators he could not possibly get away with the negative replies that he has been giving to questions about the future of the local overseas allowance? Can he give us a pledge that this year's meagre pay increase for the Services will not be eroded by a cut in local overseas allowance, which makes up 40 per cent. of the pay of our Service men in BAOR?

Order. That is a quite separate question from that which appears on the Order Paper.

I would like to answer it, Mr. Speaker because it was last year that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and some of his hon. Friends were going around saying that the local overseas allowance was to be reduced by 40 per cent. This turned out to be totally wrong. I see that they are starting in May this year instead of August. As the hon. Member knows, the whole matter is under review and I cannot anticipate anything. I express the hope that the hon. Gentleman will not begin his campaign to undermine the morale of the British Army of the Rhine earlier this year than he did last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the sale of Harriers to the People's Republic of China.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any procedural obstacles still to be overcome before the United Kingdom could respond favourably to a request from the Chinese People's Republic to purchase Harriers.

If the Chinese interest in Harrier is confirmed, the usual political, strategic and economic criteria and our international obligations in relation to the sale of Harrier would have to be examined in detail before Her Majesty's Government could take a considered view.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United States Government have now withdrawn any objections which they may have had to an arrangement of this nature? Given that the Press in the United Kingdom has been talking about the sale of 30 Harriers to China, with the possibility of building another 300 under licence, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the way in which this would affect the balance of air power in the Far East?

I am glad to say that it is no part of my responsibility to answer for or accept Press statements. We have had no indications about a sale, let alone a sale with the detail which the hon. Gentleman seems to have read in the Press. The procedures for discussing sales of this sort with our allies can be put into operation only when there is a firm proposition to be considered. We have not, therefore, gone through the COMCO procedure.

Can the Secretary of State assure the House that we shall not be left in a chicken-and-egg situation? Is he aware that the Chinese are not likely to ask if they are to be refused? Cannot he be a little more forthcoming and tell us what degree of interest the Chinese have to show before the procedures are put into motion?

As I explained, it is a bad practice to announce decisions before they have been taken, and no decisions affecting this matter have been taken.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the British Conservative Party, which for generations has had nightmares about "Reds under the bed", is now hand in glove with the Communist People's Republic of China? Will he tell the House whether that makes the Conservatives into Marxists? Will he make sure that we do not sell planes of this nature to any Communist country?

The enthusiasm shown for the Chinese People's Republic by the Conservative Party will have been noted in many quarters. While I welcome the widening of the Conservatives' international horizons, I am not sure that I would go as far as some Tory Members in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what access his Department gives to the Service records of members and ex-members of the Armed Forces.

The Service record of a member or ex-member of the Armed Forces is normally disclosed only with his consent.

Will my right hon. Friend take all the necessary steps to ensure that there is no leak of any information which could be used by unscrupulous recruiting agencies, especially in view of recent reports that British ex-Service men are operating as mercenaries in Rhodesia?

I certainly undertake to act as my hon. Friend requests. If he has knowledge of any cases in which information has leaked out without the consent of a Service man I shall be happy if he will bring them to my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and men left the Armed Forces of the Crown during the first four months of 1978; what were the equivalent figures for the first four months of 1977 and 1976; and whether he is satisfied with the present strength of the Armed Forces.

Figures for all three Services up to the end of April are not yet available. The number of officers and men who left the Armed Forces during the three months January-March in each of the last three years was: 1976, 11,105; 1977, 10,967; 1978, 11,166.

Is it not a matter of great convenience for the Secretary of State that the first figure for which he was asked is not available? Is it not the case that when that figure is available it will reveal a most disquieting trend? Does he understand that unless he substantially increases the pay of the Armed Forces the erosion in their numbers will continue?

I do not think that it is unreasonable that the first figure for which I was asked is not to hand, since it could have been available only three weeks ago. I will see that the figures are published as soon as possible. I do not think that the overall position is anywhere near as bad as some Tory Members suggest, but there is no room for complacency. There is concern about shortages and the failure to recruit some key personnel, particularly pilots—where the standard is very high—enginers, and so on. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are extremely concerned about the trend and will do all that we can to abate the outflow.