asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give for Great Britain the annual increase in company liquidations between 1960 and 1964 and between 1965 and the latest available date, respectively.

Omitting voluntary liquidations by their members of mainly solvent companies, the number increased at an annual rate of 8 per cent. in each period.

Even leaving those out of account, would not the hon. Lady agree that the rate of company liquidations has doubled in the last five years of Socialism? Is not this an appalling indictment? Will the Labour Party consider reissuing its poster of the last General Election and, instead of it saying, " Let's go with Labour ", make it " Let's go bust with Labour "?

The hon. Member must have had a rather highly coloured lunch. He is using some very exaggerated terms. It was precisely because the Government were concerned to see what was happening to small firms that they set up the inquiry. Until we get statistics which will give the information, we cannot draw such highly exaggerated conclusions.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how the number of voluntary and compulsory liquidations of businesses for the first quarter of 1970 compares with the previous eight quarters; what estimate he now has of the effect of the credit squeeze and interest rates on medium size and small businesses, by way of liquidations, closures, takeovers, and enforced mergers; what products; what regions of the country; and what type of businesses have been most affected.

With permission, I will circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Leaving aside voluntary liquidations by their members of mainly solvent companies, the figures after seasonal adjustment have recently been somewhat below the levels to which they rose last year. They do not provide any clear evidence as to the effect of the credit squeeze or of high interest rates.

The hon. Lady is misleading in her reply. The number of liquidations has doubled in the last decade, and according to recent figures voluntary liquidations are very high for the first quarter of 1970, following high figures for compulsory liquidations during the fourth quarter of 1969. Is the hon. Lady not aware that her figures are misleading because they do not tell the whole tale? Many firms have had to go out of business but have avoided the official statistics.

The hon. Gentleman asks for information and then, when I give it, say that it is misleading. He is wrong. There was a rise in the number of liquidations after the passage of the Companies Act, 1967. This in many cases was due to the fact that the status of exempt private company was abolished and it was necessary to file accounts. We accept that there has been a rise

BUSINESS CLOSURES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
Numbers
					Bankruptcies and Deeds of Arrangement†	Compulsory	Company Liquidations Creditors' Voluntary*	Members' Voluntary*‡
1968	…	…	…	…	4,298	1,111	2,057	6,082
1969	…	…	…	…	4,769	1,181	2,329	4,829
Unadjusted
1968
1st quarter			…	…	1,231	308	590	1,787
2nd quarter			…	…	1,024	279	496	1,448
3rd quarter			…	…	932	149	438	1,285
4th quarter			…	…	1,111	375	533	1,562
1969
1st quarter			…	…	1,231	318	554	1,272
2nd quarter			…	…	1,095	308	563	1,404
3rd quarter			…	…	1,214	171	627	1,090
4th quarter			…	…	1,229	384	585	1,063
1970
1st quarter			…	…	1,310	316	663	1,146

in liquidations, but the hon. Gentleman should not use quite such highly coloured terms in this context.

If the volume of liquidations is, as the Opposition allege, so high in private enterprise, does it not make the case for nationalisation and public ownership?

Whether the State takes over private companies by nationalisation or whether it assists them in any other way, it is essential that they should be viable units.

During the last five years of the Tory Government there were 200 liquidations a year; in the last five years under the present Government there have been 900 a year. Does the hon. Lady still believe that her reply to the Question was not misleading?

I do because, as the hon. Gentleman carefully refrained from saying, until very recently the growth in the number of companies was such that in many cases it kept pace with the liquidations. There have not been very many more liquidations overall when set against the number of new companies which have been created.

Is this situation not a natural and understandable trend brought about, quite rightly, by the abolition of resale price maintenance?

It is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition is not here to welcome this improvement in efficiency.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a cost-effectiveness study was undertaken by his Department into the siting of the National Exhibition Centre at Birmingham.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what examination he has made of the adequacy of the hotel accommodation for the National Exhibition Centre;

My Department made a thorough study over a prolonged period of all the factors concerned, including hotel accommodation, before I announced my decision to support the Birmingham proposals.

I specifically asked whether a cost-effectiveness study had been done. I believe that no such study has been done. If one had been done, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Birmingham would probably have been the last site chosen and that it would have been much better to have selected an area to which customers would go, such as the edge of West London?

I think the steps taken by the Birmingham local authority and the chamber of commerce will prove that my decision has been right. Many of those who opposed the proposal have now decided to take exhibition facilities there. There is a definite shift taking place in the opinion of many members of the exhibiting fraternity which favours Birmingham.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the techniques of evaluation introduced by the present Government have led to a higher standard of quality of decision-making? Is it not a pity that those techniques were not used in such an important matter as this?

My hon. Friend will remember that at the outset, when we took the decision allowing Birmingham the opportunity to make a study itself to find how its industry would react to a Birmingham national exhibition centre, there was no other positive proposal before the Government; none was forthcoming from London, certainly not with financial backing.

There is now.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) and confirm that a cost-effectiveness study was not undertaken? If it was not undertaken, why not, in view of the time in which this could have been done and the amount of money and the consequences involved?

Because, first, I do not think that is necessary when no one is prepared financially to back a proposal anywhere else in the country. Second, the Birmingham proposal is backed by the experience of a remarkably good chamber of commerce which knows how to run exhibition centres. Third, industry is now prepared to go to what will be a major communications point in the heart of the country.

Is it possible to do a cost-effective calculation when there are so many imponderables about how many customers and so on would go to the centre? Within the limits, has the President of the Board of Trade made the best calculation possible, backed by the Birmingham City Council and Chamber of Commerce?

I am satisfied that I have. It would have been a hypothetical exercise to try to assess the views of those in the exhibiting fraternity, who hitherto have always wished to remain in the South.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how far the negotiation of a trans-Siberian service route from London to Tokyo depends on the granting of landing rights in Hong Kong to the Russian airline Aeroflot.

The Soviet Minister of Civil Aviation and my right hon. Friend signed on 13th April a Protocol to the Air Services Agreement between the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R., giving B.O.A.C. rights on the trans-Siberian route to Tokyo. Aeroflot has not been granted landing rights in Hong Kong.

First, can the Minister say whether negotiations are proceeding so that there may be greater frequency on the trans-Siberian route if we grant rights in Hong Kong to Aeroflot? Secondly, to what extent are the views of the Hong Kong Government taken into account when bargaining with landing rights on the Colony for other purposes?

There has been no question of granting landing rights in Hong Kong to the Russians. The views of the Hong Kong Government have always been sought in these matters: they will continue to be sought. As regards an increase in frequencies, the agreement provides immediate rights to operate two services a week in partnership between the two airlines on the route London—Moscow—Tokyo. Any further frequencies would mean new negotiations and a new agreement.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what report he has received from British European Airways on the possibility of its secondary domestic routes being taken over by British Air Services, as recommended by the Edwards Committee and endorsed by the recent White Paper on Civil Aviation Policy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what request he has made to British European Airways regarding a study of the effects of handing over the corporation's secondary domestic routes to British Air Services.

B.E.A., at our request, is considering the possibilities and hopes to let me have its views in the summer.

Can the Minister give an undertaking that if these routes are handed over to British Air Services there will be no question of eliminating the private shareholding in British Air Services?

I know of no such intention. It is not the Government's aim to disturb the present structure in that sense. The aim is to create a new organisation which will be more viable.

As British Air Services is not without its own problems at present, does the Minister think that it has the management capacity to take on this extra work?

I am sure that it has. Domestic secondary services are a very difficult sector. B.E.A. and B.A.S., as well as other operators, have found it very difficult to make them viable.

Is the Minister aware that if this happened the timekeeping on the domestic services could not be worse than it is? It could be considerably better.

The hon. Gentleman makes an unwarrantable assertion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the failure to establish the source of recent oil pollution on the East Coast of Scotland, he is satisfied that existing procedures to identify offenders are satisfactory; and if he will make a statement.

The detection of those responsible for polluting the sea with oil is far from satisfactory but, given the practical difficulties and the present law, I am satisfied that our existing procedures are the best that are realistically practicable. Last year's amendments to the international convention on oil pollution will help us to strengthen the law and improve enforcement. Legislation for this purpose is in preparation.

Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling on the East Coast of Scotland that this problem is not being treated as urgently as it has been treated on the more populated South Coast of England? Would he agree that rapid identification of offenders is the best possible deterrent? It is no comfort to people in my area whose coasts are polluted to know that the source of pollution has not so far been traced.

Apart from his first statement, I find it very difficult to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that the problem on the East Coast of Scotland has been treated less urgently than in other parts of the country, including my own. I agree that. to a very great extent, it is a question of identification. Possibly the legislation which we have in mind will help in this matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is similar concern on the East Coast of England, particularly in seaside resorts like Great Yarmouth? Would he consider instituting helicopter patrols in the summer so that oil slicks may be detected at an early stage?

That is an attractive suggestion. It is a question of cost and cost-effectiveness. I do not rule out what my hon. Friend says. I shall look at his suggestion in relation to the coming summer, but I make no commitment. Many seaside resorts are rightly apprehensive about this kind of nuisance.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the annual average increase in the fixed capital expenditure, at 1963 prices, of the distributive and service industries between 1960 and 1964 and 1965 and 1969, respectively.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual average increase in the fixed capital expenditure of the distributive and service industries, at 1963 prices, from the beginning of 1966 to the latest convenient date.

The annual rate of increase for these industries (excluding shipping) was 9 per cent. between 1960 and 1964, 4 per cent. between 1965 and 1969, and, on the basis of seasonally adjusted figures, 6 per cent. between the first quarter of 1966 and the fourth quarter of 1969.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in terms of cash and of percentages there is clearly shown to be a substantial slowing in the rate of progress in these capital developments?

I am not convinced that that is right. The underlying trend of investment in these industries has been strongly upward over the past 10 years. As the hon. Gentleman must know if he has followed the figures closely, there was a dip in 1965–66, a picking up in 1967, a strong surge forward in 1968, and the improvement is still going on.

Is it not odd that investment in the distributive and service industries is higher than it is in manufacturing industry, which attracts investment grants? Does this not call in doubt the whole philosophy of investment grants?

No. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology answered that question the other day because he deals with manufacturing investment. Investment in the distributive and service trades is higher than it is in manufacturing, but it is ridiculous to make comparisons. The total volume of investment in the five years 1965–69 was 28 per cent. above what it was in the previous five years.

If there is no reason for disquiet about the effectiveness of taxpayers' money spent on the so-called encouragement of manufacturing investment, why are the Government instituting an inquiry?

I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology answered that question, too. Manufacturing investment is my right hon. Friend's responsibility. His Ministry is determining the terms of reference of the inquiry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take the initiative to arrange a conference through the agency of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.

The G.A.T.T. has been studying for some time the possibilities of reducing non-tariff barriers to international trade, and the contracting parties intend to consider at their next session a decision to initiate the appropriate action directed towards this end.

Does that mean that the President of the Board of Trade rejects the view which has been ventilated in some quarters that such a conference should only take place after the end of our negotiations to join the Common Market?

The next session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to consider this problem will be in 1971. It has already set up two working parties on industrial and agricultural non-tariff barriers. The two committees will probably report in the summer. There is no reason why there should not be a G.A.T.T. session in 1971.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of different census and other forms required by his Department to be completed annually by small businesses employing less than 20, 50, 100 and 200 people, respectively.

Apart from the returns which companies are required to furnish under the Companies Act, 1967, there are two sets of statistical returns: one annually, and one for manufacturing firms quarterly; plus in the few appropriate cases monthly returns on air transport operations. Where possible, very small firms are exempted from the inquiries or are asked to complete only part of a form, and in many cases sampling methods are employed. Many small firms contribute voluntarily to statistical inquiries.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the smaller the firm the more likely it is that these forms will have to be filled in by fairly senior executives who would be better employed in running the firm? Since it seems clear that this burden on small firms is increasing, would she say what action her right hon. Friend, as the Minister responsible for small businesses, is taking?

I am perfectly well aware that in small firms a senior executive must often undertake the work of filling in the returns. But the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that all the questions and statistics we ask for have been decided in conjunction with industry, and in many cases are of assistance not only to the small firms, but to the industries of which they are a part.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reduce the amount of official form-filling required of small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

The impact of official form-filling on small businesses is one of the subjects now being studied by the Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms appointed by my right hon. Friend the former President of the Board of Trade. The Government will wish to see its report before deciding what action, if any, is required.

Is the hon. Lady aware that up to 16 major returns a year have to be filled in by small businesses? Would she place copies in the Library of every form emanating from the Government which has to be filled in annually by businesses so that we can judge for ourselves whether the task is too onerous?

I am always happy to add to the education of the hon. Member, if he wishes me to do so. But he is exaggerating wildly. There is a Survey Control Unit at the Central Statistical Office which examines all forms issued by Government Departments to eliminate duplication. If the number of forms he has given is correct, it is because the statistics are needed to assist not just the Government but also the industries concerned.

Has my hon. Friend any estimate of how many extra forms and books of accounts will be needed by small businesses if a value-added tax is adopted here similar to that which exists in Europe at present?

We have not been able to do that, but since many small firms might be faced with even greater difficulties and with voluntary liquidations, it would be difficult to estimate accurately.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to promote exports, he will seek to introduce a scheme to subsidise small companies wishing to establish overseas offices and warehouses.

The Group Export Representation Unit of the Board of Trade assists groups of small and medium-sized companies to develop exports. Financial assistance is given in selected cases towards the initial costs, including, experimentally, the setting up and operating of overseas offices and warehouses.

What is the future, then, of the Overseas Marketing Corporation? Is there not an unnecessary duplication between the Group Export Representation Unit and the O.M.C.? Does the right hon. Gentleman share the criticisms that Lord Brown made recently?

There is a Question on the Order Paper about the O.M.C., to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply. With regard to G.E.R.U., I have indicated—because the hon. Gentleman's Question suggested that he did not know—that we are already assisting small firms. We are getting them together and assisting them with their marketing overseas, helping them to branch out in a way which would not be possible for them on their own. That is an entirely different operation to the O.M.C.

Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that it is not the Government's intention to set up such a special corporation to subsidise exporting and warehousing of small firms independent of the existing arrangements?

As I said in my reply, part of our assistance to small firms is experimental, especially where we are helping them to set up offices and warehouses overseas. We are giving them 50 per cent. financial assistance to do so, but we hope that after they have received assistance for two years they will be able to stand on their own feet without financial assistance from the Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why British exports to South Africa increased in value by 91 per cent. in 1969, in view of the fact that those of the United States of America increased by 11 per cent., those of West Germany by 18 per cent., those of France by 33 per cent., those of Japan by 63 per cent. and those of all the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, other than Great Britain, by 21 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to recover for Great Britain her former share of South African imports.

If the hon. Member were to look at the South African statistics which give figures on a consistent basis he would find rather a different picture. They show a more favourable performance compared with other countries and that our share of the market has been maintained. I should like to see it increased, and the official services and B.N.E.C. are doing all they can to help our exporters.

It is good news to hear that the Minister wants to see the proportions increased, but if he studies the O.E.C.D. figures he will find that our share of the market has been declining. To what extent does he attribute this to the Government's refusal to sell submarines and other useful arms for the maintenance of internal law, and to what extent does he attribute it to the Government's refusal to allow British firms to act like their international competitors and conduct their trade with Rhodesia through South Africa?

If the hon. Gentleman peruses the figures closely he will see that up to 1968 our share of the market was declining. In 1968 and 1969 that decline halted. Our share of the market in both those years was 24 per cent.

As to the question of arms, we impose an embargo which does not seem to be affecting our commercial trade. We have no desire for an economic confrontation with South Africa. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the table from which he took the figures in his Question, he will see that in 1969 we exported 702 million dollars-worth of goods to South Africa, and that the French, who supply arms to South Africa, exported 137 million dollars-worth.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House regard it as wholly undesirable that this trade with South Africa should increase, that we do not wish to see this country involved in the economy of a country whose social situation has been condemned by the whole world, and that the fact that some of our commercial competitors behave in this anti-social international fashion is no justification for our doing so?

My hon. Friend will recognise that there are certain countries in the world with whose policies he would also disagree, and that if we stopped commercial trading with every country in the world with whose policy we disagreed it would not be long before we were bankrupt.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Yorkshire and Worcestershire are the two greatest cricketing counties in Britain?

I cannot see what that has to do with trade. Our arms embargo and our views on apartheid and racialism in sport have not stopped commercial development.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the satisfactory nature of the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend, I shall raise the matter again in due course.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the Government's intention to provide further loan capital for the Overseas Marketing Corporation when the corporation has taken up the £400,000 for which provision has already been made.

The Overseas Marketing Corporation has made no request to the Government for any loans in excess of the originally-agreed limit of £400,000.

Is the hon. Lady aware that there appears to be a danger of over-provision here? If there is to be the G.E.R.U. scheme in operation, which will she back in view of the obvious discrepancy of opinion between Lord Brown and the rest of the Department about the right way to handle the matter?

I look forward to the day when the hon. Gentleman says, " I am so glad that the Board of Trade provides so many services to our exporters that we are doing so well in so many fields." He must stop saying that as we are offering two sets of services we must be over-providing. We are doing nothing of the sort. The O.M.C. was an experiment to assist some smaller and medium-sized firms. The O.M.C. has found various opportunities which it is exploiting to the benefit of this country. I look forward to the day when the hon. Gentleman gives it the praise to which it is entitled.

Would my hon. Friend draw the Opposition's attitude to the attention of the companies involved, as it would appear that if by some mischance the Opposition became the Government they would stop assistance of this kind to exporters?

I am sure that the attitude of some Opposition Members has been carefully noted by exporters, who are working very hard in export markets. However, since the Opposition will not be the Government anyway, their attitude will not do any great harm.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why Great Britain is not backing the Malta Trade Fair this year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why Great Britain is not participating in the Malta Trade Fair in July.

British goods will be displayed at the fair. There will, however, be no collective British participation supported by the Board of Trade as there has been no call this year for such support from British exporters.

How does the Minister account for the fact that 14 other countries are exhibiting there, even including Eastern European countries? Why do the Government have a built-in prejudice against Malta, rubbing salt into the wounds? If we are giving aid and grants on the one hand, we should get what trade we can with this small, loyal member of the Commonwealth.

I must reject any suggestion of any kind of prejudice against the island of Malta. The present Government have in particular undertaken to find assistance for the Maltese shipyards. There has not been Board of Trade support for our exporters at the fair since 1967. It is a question of people asking for us to assist them to go to particular markets, and they have not done so on this occasion.

Will not the Government offer support even though it has not been demanded, not only to promote our own trade but also in view of the need to help Malta, this member of the Commonwealth and the Council of Europe, to develop herself as a trade centre for Southern Europe and the Mediterranean?

I cannot offer to undertake services which people do not require. In exporting we must increasingly have a professional attitude. Industrialists themselves prefer to go to specialised trade fairs and not general fairs, of which the Malta Trade Fair is an example.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what use has been made of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's buyer credit facilities announced in May, 1969.

At the time of the announcement it was estimated that in 1969 export contracts supported by buyer credit facilities might amount to £100 million. In fact, the total reached £103 million relating to 14 contracts by the end of the year and now stands at £134 million.

Do those figures include lines of credit?

No, Sir. In addition to the figures I have given, 16 lines of credit have been guaranteed by E.C.G.D. over the same period, which covers lines of £102 million.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable criticism of the export credit guarantee scheme, particularly about the bureaucratic delays in getting the guarantee, among our businessmen in the Far East? They say that this puts them at a grave disadvantage compared with the quick procedure of the Japanese and Australians. Is the Minister considering this? What does she propose to do about it?

I am not aware of any such criticism. If the hon. Gentleman would like to bring me evidence, I will certainly look at it. The department is run on purely commercial lines, and it has been remarkably successful over a period of years.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake an examination of the price elasticity of demand for the services provided by the hotel, insurance and banking industries and other service industries which earn substantial quantities of foreign exchange.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a strong case for such an inquiry, which would throw light on the desirability of removing S.E.T. from these industries in order to increase their earnings of foreign currency?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman in his conclusion. If such an examination took place, I am sure that it would come down on the side of Professor Reddaway and say how efficient these industries have become since S.E.T. was imposed.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that discrimination is not only in terms of S.E.T. but also in terms of lack of availability of investment grant? Why does he wish to discriminate against these service industries in two respects despite the fact that they have done so well in helping the Government out?

I have consistently praised them for doing so well, but their success surely shows that S.E.T. is not as harmful as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the trend of investment by the distributive trades in 1970.

No separate estimate is available for the distributive trades. For the distributive and service trades taken together, the results of the last investment intentions inquiry, published in January, indicated a small increase in volume compared with 1969.

Does not the trend of investment, taken alongside the reduction in numbers employed in the distributive trades, indicate that the main effect of S.E.T. has been to reduce the standard of service available to shoppers?

I do not accept that as true. The standard of service has increased because of the efficiency resulting from the imposition of S.E.T. The investment level rose by 12 per cent. in 1968 and a further 2 per cent. in 1969, and we expect a small increase in 1970.

Where does the right hon. Gentleman get his evidence for the proposition he has enunciated, that the standard of service has improved?

As a member of the general public I can detect it as well as anyone else.

But does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that Professor Reddaway specifically excluded the question of service from that which is provable as a result of S.E.T. and suggested that the public had suffered in the quality of service since the imposition of S.E.T.?

I hone that the right hon. Gentleman will draw to my attention any facts showing that service has suffered. I am not aware of it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what organisation he has now set up to promote city centre to city centre civil airline services in the United Kingdom, Europe and even farther afield using short takeoff and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft; and what evidence has been given to the Roskill Commission about this form of airline development.

The first task is to evaluate the economic and operational aspects of services with aircraft of these kinds and the Commission on the Third London Airport has been told that it will be informed of the result of studies now in hand on STOL systems. It is likely to be some years before aircraft of either sort are sufficiently developed for widespread commercial use.

While I readily accept that it will be in the 1980s before anything materialises, there has been the Ministry of Technology's report on sites. Who will have the responsibility of developing airport sites and services? Will it be the civil airports authorities or the local authorities? Is it not possible that, if technological developments go apace, the third London Airport will be obsolete before it comes into service?

The question of sites is part of a very wide-ranging area of study particularly in regard to the possibilities of STOL, in which my Department, the Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Transport are engaged. As the hon. Gentleman knows, STOL shows a greater likelihood than VTOL of becoming commercially viable at the moment. I will bear the other point he mentioned in mind, but I do not feel I can give him an answer now.

Does not this question demonstrate how wise the Government were to give prompt financial aid to the Britten-Norman aircraft, the Islander, which is a feeder aircraft now much in use overseas, and which could be used far more in this country?

I think that is so, and that my hon. Friend's view would command fairly general agreement.

In view of the interdependence between development of aircraft and development of ground facilities, for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, can we look to him to set a rather brisker pace than the Minister of Technology is doing with regard to aircraft?

I must say that I am flattered that anyone should think that I could set a brisker pace than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology: I will do my best.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many consultations he has had with the Trinity House Pilots on his proposal to amend the Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders) Rules 1965 to give statutory effect to recommendations contained in Merchant Shipping Notice No. M.558 issued in June, 1969;

Merchant Shipping Notice M.558 was issued after consultation with interested organisations. These consultations led us to believe that the amendment would be immediately acceptable.

However, when we sought the views of Trinity House Pilotage Service on the proposed amendment, it indicated substantial disagreement with it. These differences have been explored in subsequent meetings, and the board has undertaken to reconsider its attitude in consultation with others concerned such as the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping. A further meeting with Trinity House and the pilots will be arranged as soon as these consultations have been completed.

Does the Minister appreciate how unsatisfactory this is? One pilot has already lost his life because this matter has not been settled. Surely the Minister will agree that the pilots should give advice on their own safety? A television programme on this subject has been broadcast, and I have been forced to use the Ten-minute Rule Bill procedure to bring in a Private Member's Bill to get the Board of Trade to do something about this.

It does not lie entirely either with the Board of Trade or with the pilots. Our object is to reconsider this decision, as I think the hon. Gentleman wishes us to do. For this purpose we must consult a fair range of interested parties in the industry as a whole. Once that is done, we shall have immediate talks with Trinity House and the pilots.

Are we to understand that disagreement was expressed by the Chamber of Shipping on behalf of shipowners in general on the ground of cost, and is not it shocking that the pilots' lives should be in jeopardy because of minor expenditure on the provision of the necessary equipment?

No. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the disagreement was not on cost; it was on technical points.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he decided to raise the quota for imported butter by 28,000 tons this year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect on home production of his decision to increase the quota of imported butter.

No effect is expected since estimated home production was taken fully into account before the import quota was fixed. The basis on which the quota was fixed was explained in the reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on 15th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 246.]

Is not this discouraging for dairy farmers in their present difficulties, and does not it reflect the Government's lack of sympathy for the farmers?

It is quite wrong to suggest that the Government are not sympathetic to the farmers. They seem to me to bend over backwards to assist them. The 1970–71 quota is 28,000 tons higher than that for 1969–70, but it is still 37,000 tons less than in 1968–69 and well below the average for the last five years, which was 445,000 tons.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how the Government can ever hope to gain the confidence of home agriculture when their exhortations to save imports are so manifestly superficial? Must we have this constant double-talk about agriculture?

If hon. Gentlemen opposite were more careful to give accurate information to the farmers in their constituencies there would be far less misunderstanding. If they also showed more interest in the consumers' point of view we might get a more balanced discussion in the House on the problems of agriculture.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of these butter imports are coming from Common Market countries where there are large surpluses at high prices, and what effect this will have on the British economy?

I do not have that breakdown, but the butter stock level on 1st April was 79,000 tons, and in these circumstances to keep imports at last year's level would have kept consumers short of supplies.

Short of increasing the consumption of butter in the British market, does not this increase make absolute nonsense of the repeated exhortation of the Government to save imports?

I have explained more than once that the figures are still well below the average. We must also concern ourselves with the interests of the housewife. The hon. Gentleman is very vocal about the farmers; I would like to hear him being equally vocal about the consumers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has decided to leave the £100,000 butter quota for China unchanged.

This small quota, which has remained unchanged for 12 years, exists for different reasons from the general butter quotas, and we saw no reason to extend to it the increases my right hon. Friend announced in them on 23rd March.—[Vol. 798, c. 294.]

I appreciate the importance of consumer choice, but is it necessary to continue this quota? Is not France sending a lot of butter to China?

The hon. Member will accept, I am sure, that I am not, happily, responsible for exports from France. This quota is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of our total butter imports. Our trade with China has been expanding at a considerable rate, since in 1969 we exported £51·8 million and we imported only £37·7 million.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Limited.