asked the Minister for Trade how many individuals and how many organisations have made representations to him in favour of floating exchange rates in the past 12 months.

I have received no formal representations during the last year in support of floating exchange rates.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that international trade was facilitated and that the British economy worked better with fixed exchange rates? What steps are the Government taking to try to bring about greater order in international exchange rates?

It is true that Bretton Woods made its contribution to the expansion of trade in the world in the post-war period. We have, however, moved slightly out of that period. I recognise that the EMS has contributed to the stability of exchange rates and has therefore assisted trade within the membership of that mechanism. The Government will, as they have announced, consider joining the EMS at the appropriate moment.

Do not recent events demonstrate the wisdom of Her Majesty's Government in staying well clear of the European monetary system?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. It is not that the EMS is fundamentally unsound—

Yes, it is.

—but that the Socialist, monetary and fiscal policies in certain countries will create abnormal exchange rate instability.

Is it possible to have an operative European monetary system if different countries within the European Community follow radically different economic policies?

My hon. Friend will have heard me say that one country at least has been following policies that have created monetary and fiscal instability.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will outline the expected benefits to United Kingdom trade and to United Kingdom consumers of the recent trade agreement between the European Community member states and Japan regarding video tape recorders.

Voluntary restraint by Japanese exporters of video tape recorders to the Community should encourage import substitution and the creation of new jobs. Production is now under way through the joint venture between Thorn EMI and JVC, and two other Japanese companies have announced plans to follow suit.

How many jobs are likely to 5e created in the United Kingdom as a consequence of that agreement? Does the Minister agree that the maximum number of jobs created will probably be between 200 and 300, instead of thousands, and that the main benefits of the agreement will go to France and Germany rather than to the United Kingdom?

I can give no estimate of the number of jobs likely to be created. That would be highly speculative. However, no doubt those hon. Members with Livingston and Haddington in their constituencies will be reassured by the fact that two Japanese companies are proposing to manufacture video tape recorders there.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept the assessment of the Financial Times on 14 February that at present there is no United Kingdom product that is likely to benefit from the arrangement, and that in the foreseeable future there is only the Sanyo product planned to be assembled in Lowestoft and the Mitsubishi product planned to be assembled in Scotland, which will create about 200 jobs? Does he agree that, in the absence of Government action to stimulate development and investment, all that will happen is that the British consumer will be required to pay higher prices for a restricted range of West German products?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will observe that one element of the agreement negotiated by the Commission with the Japanese is to allow the development of a European, and especially a United Kingdom, industry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to imagine, like too many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, that the only way to stimulate industrial development is by pouring in public money. That is not this Government's policy.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on the current state of the merchant fleet and on the steps he proposes to take to halt its decline.

As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) on 18 March, I have concluded that there is no basis for major changes in the Government's shipping policy. Action to deal with the difficult conditions the merchant fleet has to face must come essentially from the industry itself, in particular from its own efforts to achieve greater international competitiveness.

Is the Minister aware that his inertia, characterised by the statement to which he has referred, has pulverised the British merchant fleet more effectively than Hitler's U-boats? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that his refusal to give details of flagging out is characteristic of that inertia? Why cannot he give those details, and why does that flagging out occur? Why does not the Minister introduce the proposals to avert that disaster that were set out in the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1978, but which were scuttled by the Conservatives after the vote of no confidence in March 1979?

The hon. Gentleman is long on invective and short on facts when he talks about Government inertia. He clearly has not bothered to read my answer of 14 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter)—

I have.

—where I listed about a dozen things that we had done in the past year alone. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman clearly has not read a whole series of parliamentary answers, including an answer given only last Friday, which detailed about a dozen more measures that I am taking to reduce the burdens imposed on the fleet. The way forward is for the United Kingdom's Merchant Navy to consider its high manning levels compared with its best European competitors and to cut them, and other crew costs, to make the fleet competitive.

Does my hon. Friend know that it is very refreshing that he, as the Minister responsible, should come out strongly telling truths that should have been told a long time ago about what is needed in the Merchant Navy? Does my hon. Friend agree that shipowners and unions should discuss high manning levels and other high crew costs if the decline of the Merchant Navy is to be reversed?

I certainly agree that the decline in the merchant fleet could be halted and reversed if both unions and management saw the truths as clearly as my hon. Friend. What my hon. Friend has said is, indeed, the truth and the sooner both management and unions accept it, the better for the industry.

Does the Minister recognise that that statement will be received with considerable anger by seamen, particularly by those who have returned from the Falklands and who are now told that they must become redundant if they are to save their industry? Does the Minister realise that the price of the industry reducing its manning by 25 per cent. to the level of flag-of-convenience countries, as he is saying it must, is that those countries lose four times as many ships as Britain, which costs the lives of many seafarers, as the inquiry into the Union Star and the Penlee lifeboat now shows?

None of us can know what the inquiry into the Penlee disaster shows, because it has not yet been concluded. However, we are talking not about comparing manning levels with flags-of-convenience ships but, for example, with Norwegian vessels, which are almost on all fours with ours. If the Norwegians can make cuts consistent with safety, so can we. Indeed, that must be done if the United Kingdom's fleet is to be competitive.

Although I agree that the merchant fleet must become more competitive, is not the size of the merchant fleet important to our maritime defence? May we be assured that the Department of Trade is in touch with and in consonance with the Ministry of Defence?

I gladly give my hon. Friend that assurance, just as I gladly pay tribute—as I have many times—to the way in which members of the Merchant Navy so gallantly conducted themselves during the Falklands war. That is precisely why my Department is playing its part on several committees, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that our defence requirements are maintained. At present, the Merchant Navy is fully capable of carrying out any wartime commitments that the Ministry of Defence foresees.

Is it not true that since the Conservative party came to office less than four years ago the number of merchant ships has fallen by 32 per cent., while tonnage has fallen by 36 per cent.? Does the Minister recall telling the House last November that the Government were determined not just to stand idly by as mere spectators of the sad scene of a massive decline in British merchant shipping? Is it not an outrage that the Minister's non-statement of policy should be leaked out in a written answer that took the form of a major statement on Friday? Will the Minister come before the House and give us an opportunity to discuss fully and forthrightly the decline of this island trading nation's merchant marine?

It is sad that when one tries to help the House by putting out a statement in advance of Question Time precisely so that it can be discussed, one is criticised for trying to help the House. However, I shall continue to try to do that. As for any ludicrous charges of inertia, I have done more in 18 months to cut the regulatory burdens placed on the Merchant Navy than the Labour party did in five years when it was responsible for the industry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wholly inadequate response from an inadequate Minister, I beg—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a formula to use if he wishes to raise the issue on the Adjournment, and references to other hon. Members are not included in it.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on another occasion.

asked the Minister for Trade whether he will meet the organisers of the "Think British" campaign.

I met the "Think British" council on 9 March. I shall be having regular meetings with it to discuss progress. I am also very willing to meet other bodies active in this subject.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the "Think British" council that if the British consumer bought 4 per cent. more of his goods at home that would lead to an increase of 350,000 jobs? That being so, will my hon. Friend do all he can to help, in particular by moving further down the line of origin marking? Perhaps we could know when cars have been assembled overseas. Also, will my hon. Friend take urgent and fairly radical action to stop substandard imports into Britain?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are looking at the origin marking order and its implications. However, I take my hon. Friend's point about the contribution that thinking British can make to reducing unemployment and to supporting our industries. No doubt the House was pleased at the recent success of two British products—British Leyland's Metro and Maestro.

In the latter part of his reply the Minister said that he would meet other interested people. Will he make a date with the director-general of the BBC, Mr. Alasdair Milne, who is supported by public funds, but who refuses to meet members of Parliament or to answer their letters? He has two large cars and he went to Germany to buy one of them out of public funds. Will the Minister get in touch with the BBC and ask it to think British, particularly in its overseas programmes when people laud to the hilt overseas firms, to the detriment of British buyers and firms?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman has made his views clear to the director-general of the BBC. As hon. Members know, I am in touch with several major organisations and public figures on such matters.

rose—

Mr. Morris, to ask the next question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are there to be only one or two supplementary questions on this important issue?

As long as the House gives me the responsibility, I shall decide.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech the Minister with responsibility for tourism made to the London tourist board on 17 January.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech given by the Minister responsible for tourism to the London tourist board on 17 January.

Yes, Sir. Copies of the speech have been placed in the Library.

Is the Minister aware that his reference in that speech to abandoning the policy of spreading the economic benefits of tourism more widely throughout Britain caused widespread concern? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that his written reply last Wednesday announcing additional resources for the London tourist board has also caused concern, not least in the north of England? When will he announce further resources to help the north of England?

The north of England will share in the far greater benefits of the large increase that I have made in section 4 grants under the Development of Tourism Act 1969. I have increased the money that is going not only to the London tourist board but to all the regional tourist boards—an increase of £100,000. That is greater than the rise in inflation.

Is not the existing dominance of London as a tourist centre largely due to the unreasonable predominance of London's airports? Is it not a fact that about 94 per cent. of all tourists coming to Britain have to pass through London, although about 30 per cent. do not want to stay in London but want to spend their holidays in the regions? Is there not some imbalance between the money allowed for tourism in London compared with in the regions?

No, Sir, there is not. I am sorry to have to answer so bluntly. My hon. Friend has fought hard for Manchester airport and he will know that I have also done a great deal for both scheduled and cargo traffic at Manchester airport, giving it a higher allocation than it has ever had. However, he must face the fact that tourists come to london not because they like Heathrow airport but because they want to see Buckingham palace, the changing of the guard, the Houses of Parliament, and other tourist attractions. If we can get them to come to London in the first place there is a chance that we shall he able to initiate them into the delights of tourist attractions elsewhere in Britain.

What help does the Minister propose to give to airports such as Manchester other than answering questions at the Dispatch Box in a way that seems to be mildly insulting to the north-west of England? If I may say so, we find it insulting to keep hearing such comments about how great London is compared with Manchester airport. What help will he give to Manchester airport and to persuade people—this is the essence—that there are other things in Great Britain besides Buckingham palace, Horse Guards parade and so on, which they should be encouraged to see?

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), for instance.

I am fully aware of that. Anybody representing Aberdeen as I do could not fail to be aware that there is a great deal outside London. I must say—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) will back me up on this—that to accuse me of not having done anything for Manchester airport, when I have given it the Iberian scheduled service, the Ward air cargo service, and £153 million for regional airports since the Government came to power, is ludicrous and shows how badly out of touch the Liberal party is with the realities of life.

Will my hon. Friend have another look at Government policy? Does he realise that many hon. Members think that he is placing far too great an emphasis on London? Is it right to initiate a policy that takes from the tourist industry the port of entry assistance that has worked so well in the past few years?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that although the English tourist board has withdrawn its help from Harwich, the regional district board and the local authority have taken over its work. That shows that our policy is right. I have already made the point that London is our single major attraction. It also draws into Britain people who can then visit Harwich and other places.

Now that the pound is at a historically low level, when does the Minister expect last year's deficit of £400 million on tourism to return to the healthy surpluses that existed under the Labour Government?

It is true that the year before last our tourist balance of trade went into deficit for the first time for 16 or 17 years. I do not think that the Labour party can take any credit for that. With the change in the pound-dollar relationship there is an even better incentive for us to have American tourists. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that even last year there was a 7 per cent. increase in tourists from America. I hope that he will rejoice with us about that instead of making cheap party political points.

asked the Minister for Trade what was the balance of trade for the last month for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

The United Kingdom had a visible trade deficit of £491 million in January. The estimated monthly surplus on invisible trade amounted to £230 million.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that in January there was a deficit on non-oil visible trade of over £1 billion and an overall deficit of £261 million? Will he also confirm that despite an oil surplus for 1982 of £4·6 billion the overall balance was only £3·9 billion, showing an overall deficit if it were not for oil? How can he reconcile that with the Secretary of State's reference on 31 January to what he was pleased to call

"the outstanding performance of our overseas trade in 1982"?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should take comfort from the fact that we have had record surpluses for the past three years and should not draw too many conclusions from one month's figures. Oil has made a contribution to our export figures but so, for example, has invisible trade. The right hon. and learned Gentleman trumpets about the Government being wrong, but he has not said in what regard.

As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has referred to the 1982 figures, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that on a similar basis—imports and exports—we showed a £2 billion surplus on manufactures, which is precisely the area which the Labour party spends so much time highlighting and on which it claims we were not doing very well?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. May I reinforce it for the benefit of the House and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)? While world trade in manufactured goods in 1982 shrunk by 3 per cent., the volume of exports of United Kingdom manufactured goods increased by 1 per cent. That seems to demonstrate that manufacturing industry is not in such a bad state as the Opposition would have us believe.

Will the Minister not be so complacent about such matters? Does he not realise that manufacturing industries have been having a bad time, largely due to imports? Would it not be more effective to plan our trade and protect vital sectors of British industry, such as the motor, steel and paper industries? If nothing is done there will soon be no paper industry in Britain.

The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not say how, if we were to plan our exports, which I suppose is a euphemism for protectionism, we could prevent other countries employing the same tactics against us. As we export about 30 per cent. of our gross domestic product—more than any other developed country in the world—we would suffer from such planning, which would lead to a trade war.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in our efforts to preserve and improve our trade balance, it is vital to continue to deal with the problem of non-tariff barriers? Is he as worried as I am about the fact that the United Nations conference on trade and development recently demonstrated that there are about 21,000 products in the world to which non-tariff barriers now apply? What plans do the Government have to reduce that number, which cannot be for the good of free trade?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It can fairly be said that about 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom's imports are subject to some kind of non-tariff barrier. I am devoting a great deal of thought to the internal market councils of the EC, which are designed to eliminate precisely that type of barrier.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's review of its policies towards the film industry.

I have seen many interested organisations and individuals in the course of my review, and there are some meetings still to take place. A statement will be made as soon as the review is complete and I have considered it.

Will the Minister give an assurance that he is considering whether television should make a direct and substantial contribution to the film industry? Is it not intolerable that television should be making so much use of film and yet contributing not one penny towards the film industry?

Yes, I am looking at the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, although I shall certainly not make up my mind at this stage whether to accept or reject the arguments which, by implication, he makes. The hon. Gentleman's second point has also been made to me by many individuals and organisations and I am considering it.

Does the Minister accept that Labour Members recognise the achievements and the high standard of the British film industry, which serves not only cinema and television, but, increasingly, the video industry? Will he accept that his review of the film industry must provide for two basic objectives: first, a coherent framework for Government policy in place of the present fragmented response of different Departments; and, secondly, a more substantial, more stable and fairer basis of financial support for the film industry, reflecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said, its importance not only to cinemagoers but to television, video and, increasingly, cable television viewers?

I am taking all such matters into consideration.

Was not the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to extend capital allowances for a further two years welcome to the television and film industries?

Yes, it was. I am glad that last night Sir Richard Attenborough praised that step. It shows how seriously this Government take the film industry.

asked the Minister for Trade what progress has been made in reducing the tariff levied by the Spanish Government on British car imports; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister for Trade whether he will make a statement on the current position on negotiations on Spanish car imports.

I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) to the written answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 16 March.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the new tariff quotas that he has announced will be seen as a long-overdue step towards removing the unfair discrimination by the EC relating to British cars going to Spain? Does he accept that there is still a long way to go before we achieve the principle of tariff equality? Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that in the interests of the British car manufacturing industry he will be vigilant in his efforts to press for that principle?

My hon. Friend is right. This Government have been anxious—as have various of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller)—to reduce the tariff disparity between the European Community and Spain. We welcome the announcement by the Spanish Government. It provides British Leyland once more with the possibility of breaking into the Spanish market. In the long term, the disparity will be removed completely when Spain becomes a full member of the European Community.

Is the Minister aware that although his announcement is welcome, it deals with only one part of the problem? It does not deal with completely assembled Spanish units coming here. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that since the Government took office, although there has been a certain amount of stability in Japanese, West German and French completely assembled units coming here, the number of Spanish completely assembled units coming here has almost doubled? When will he do something about too many Spanish cars, particularly the Vauxhalls, coming into Britain?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Spanish car imports have dropped by 10,000 each year over the past three years, and we have a healthy surplus in sales of components to Spain.

Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that many of us recognise the tremendous amount of hard work that he has put into negotiations to get us this far, but does he accept that it is somewhat less than some of us hoped for, particularly in relation to small cars, such as the Metro? Will he bear in mind that, in the arrangements being made for Spain to join the Common Market, it would be unsatisfactory to have a long transitional period in which the Spanish were allowed to pillage our car market?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, particularly since he has been such a vigorous defender of the interests of the British motor car industry in the west midlands. He will be aware that the arrangement offers scope for British Leyland to sell the larger Metro and the Maestro on the Spanish market. I hope that when it has rebuilt its dealer network that will be done on a successful scale. I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the length of the transitional period.

Does the Minister recognise that the arrangement falls far short of what is required to achieve reciprocity between duties of 19 and 25 per cent., a converse duty of 4·4 per cent., and the fact that there is no concession on cars under 1275 cc? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman made clear to our EC partners and to the Spanish Government that it is no more than an offer on account of what is clearly required?

It may be an offer on account, but it is a very useful offer. We should not look gift horses in the mouth. When the transitional period is over we shall be in a position of complete equality. I hope that in the meantime British Leyland will be able, on the basis of the offer by the Spanish Government, to rebuild its dealer network. We can then judge the adequacy or otherwise of the present arrangements.

Is it not a fact that, prior to the start of negotiations for Spain to enter the Common Market, it was agreed that the status quo on tariff arrangements should remain until the negotiations were completed? Is not the arrangement a considerable achievement for the British motor car industry? Of course it does not go far enough, but should we not praise the Government for what they have obtained?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. Since the unilateral offer by the Spaniards has been achieved independent of negotiations for entry, my hon. Friend's observations are well founded.

Will the Minister seek an early meeting with British motor car manufacturers and urge them to use more British steel in their products, since in quality, finish and delivery dates it can meet any challenge from the continent, as I am sure Mr. Ian MacGregor, chairman of the BSC, will readily testify?

I am sure that our British motor car manufacturers will take full note of the hon. Gentleman's warm commendation, which I fully endorse.

asked the Minister for Trade what relative priority Her Majesty's Government now give to London in spending on tourism and infrastructure.

I am currently reconsidering in my general tourism review the policy which has existed since 1974 of concentrating resources away from London and other popular tourist destinations. I have already announced to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) on 16 March that I have asked the English Tourist Board to increase its existing levels of support for all the regional tourist boards in the next financial year, and in particular to give some additional funds to the London tourist board in view of London's prime position as our single most important tourist destination and the main gateway to other parts of the country.

If we are to exploit to the full the job-creating aspects of tourism, is it not unwise to continue to rely on the single principal funnel of London as a route for visitors to Britain? Do we not require a more determined marketing effort to sell the regional qualities of the other parts of our country, because through the London funnel people trickle only as far as Stratford, Oxford and Cambridge? Is it not uncharacteristic of my hon. Friend to come to the opposite conclusion? Is he not being rather defeatist?

There is no question of London being the only funnel—perhaps not the most appropriate word. Direct flights from abroad arrive at Prestwick, Manchester and even at Aberdeen, where we recently granted increased flights to SAS. We are conscious that London is not the only gateway for tourists, but, whether we like it or not, it happens to be the most important single gateway. When people come to London, they can spread out to the rest of the country. It is no use taking some little-known place in the United Kingdom, of which I shall not give an example for reasons of tact, advertising it in the United States or Japan, and encouraging people to come to that tiny place. We must advertise what is best so that, when people are here, they will see the other resources that we have on offer.

In view of Mr. Egon Ronay's scathing comments on food in London restaurants and other catering establishments, will the Under-Secretary of State advise tourists that, if they have any respect for their stomachs, they should stay away from London?

No, I will not give that advice. However, as soon as I read of Mr. Ronay's charges this morning I asked my private office to contact Mr. Ronay to invite him to meet me to tell me all about them. I also asked the London tourist board immediately to give me its reaction to the charges.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his support for the regional tourist boards is greatly welcomed, especially by the East Midlands tourist board? Is he further aware that the boards need to know fairly soon what grants they are to get so that they can plan constructively for the coming months?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining once more that we are redeploying resources so that the regional tourist boards receive more grant in the coming year than hitherto—£100,000 more than inflation would set as a figure. I hope to tell the House of the conclusions on the tourism review next month.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that I agree to a large extent with his comments about London? Whether we like it or not, tourists will come to London. Is that not an important reason why he should give the regions even more money? In the area that I represent, the Northumbria tourist board can offer immense attractions, at least as important as those in London? Bearing in mind unemployment in Northumbria, is there not a case for providing greater Government grants to attract tourists to the area?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's agreement with my general comment about the importance of London. I agree that the regional tourist boards should receive more money, and more money is what they will receive next year.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will estimate the effects upon the balance of trade for the current year of the recent changes in the price of oil.

No, Sir. It is not possible to make a reliable estimate in view of the many uncertainties involved.

In view of the uncertainties, and bearing in mind that the Government's economic policy has been saved from complete collapse by North sea oil—oil production, which is expected to peak in about 1985, will have consequences for the oil trade and tax revenues and that will lead to a further decline—what steps has the Minister taken, or what steps is he about to take, to ensure that our non-oil trade recovers sufficiently to make good the deficit?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. As I have said on many occasions, we have had three years of record surpluses on our current account. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has overlooked that fact. What further recovery does he have in mind? I remind the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget statement, said that North sea oil accounts for only 5 per cent. of our national income and raises in tax only 6 per cent. of Government revenue. We must get the problem in perspective.

Will the Minister confirm that, despite the statistical difficulties in answering the question, it is a fact that our net oil trade is only one of the factors that have contributed to the major current account surplus of the past three or four years?

I am very ready to confirm that fact. One element that Opposition Members—but not the right hon. Gentleman—constantly overlook is the contribution that is made by our service industries.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will assess the impact on the different elements in the balance of United Kingdom visible and invisible trade in 1982 of the common agricultural policy of the European Community.

No, Sir. It would be quite impossible to make any meaningful assessment of this kind.

Is the Minister aware that the common agricultural policy now costs Britain over £2 billion annually, this sum coming from United Kingdom taxes and going straight into the EC budget? To rub salt into the wound, British consumers have to pay considerably more for their food than current world prices would justify.

I think that the hon. Gentleman's observations would be better directed at my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I take note of his remarks, but they do not seem to have any great bearing on our trade flows.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that, over the past year or so, there has been a significant shift within the common agricultural policy in the funding of surplus production from products such as wheat and milk towards Mediterranean-type products such as wine and olive oil? Will that not be of major significance in the extent to which we benefit in future from the budget contribution that we make to the CAP? Does it not presage the case for an early review of the mechanism?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I have said, these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no doubt that they will take full account of these matters when considering our policy towards the European budget.

Bearing in mind the substantial cost of the common agricultural policy to our taxpayers and consumers, why are the Government supporting the EC in its threat of a major agriculture surplus trade war in the negotiaions with the United States? How can that possibly be in the interests of the British consumer or taxpayer?

An agriculture surplus trade war would be of no benefit to the United Kingdom, the rest of the European Community or the United States. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United States, perhaps in different ways, supports its agriculture to much the same degree as the EC supports its agriculture, and that the Community is the best export market for United States agricultural products.

asked the Minister for Trade what progress has been made towards a more extensive and effective British quality mark system; and if he will make a statement.

The possibility of a British quality mark is being considered in the light of comments received following publication of the White Paper on standards, quality and international competitiveness—Cnmd 8621. We hope to announce our conclusions shortly.

What steps does my hon. Friend propose to take to ensure that Britain takes the lead in setting standards in Europe instead of having other standards imposed upon us?

I believe that British products are of the highest standards. We are determined to develop our national reputation of producing goods of high quality and safety both in Europe and elsewhere. We can increase our competitiveness both at home and overseas through a better use of British national standards.

Will the Minister consider extending quality marking to footwear, textiles and carpets? Secondly, when these quality standards are established, will he encourage public purchasing authorities to buy to those standards, because that will lead to more trade in British goods?

We are encouraging public purchasing authorities to buy goods of British standards. Our national standard BS 5750 is gaining wide recognition. This is evident from the 5,500 companies on the register of quality-assessed United Kingdom manufacturers.

asked the Minister for Trade what was the percentage change in the size of the United Kingdom merchant shipping fleet from 1 January 1979 to the latest available date.

Between 1 January 1979 and 31 December 1982 there was a reduction of about 34 per cent. in terms of deadweight tonnage.

Are not these figures a demonstration that the Minister's written answer on Friday was a betrayal of the British interest as a maritime nation? It is as if a major continental country were willing to see most of its railways ripped up and destroyed and much of the remaining railways sold off and placed under foreign control. The Under-Secretary is turning out to be not so much a mouse that roared as a paper tiger that cannot even squeak.

I shall ignore those complicated similes and remind the hon. Gentleman that although our Merchant Navy has declinmed, that is also true of the Merchant Navies of Norway, France, Germany and Sweden. The Swedish Merchant Navy, for examnple, has declined by 46 per cent. The decline is not confined to Britain. It is worldwide, because of the world recession and world overtonnaging. The main answer is for the British fleet to make itself more competitive in ways which I have already underlined—for example, directing its attention to extra crew costs and overmanning.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there is a long seafaring tradition in this country, people still own ships to make money, not for patriotic reasons? What are the Government doing to remove some of the financial and bureaucratic obstacles against registration of ships in the United Kingdom?

Patriotism still plays a large part in the attitude of shipowners and seafaring unions. We saw this splendidly exemplified during the Falklands war.

asked the Minister for Trade, following his letter to the General Council of British Shipping and the National Union of Seamen inviting them to put their views on the lessons to be learnt from the involvement of merchant ships and Merchant Navy personnel in the task Force, what consideration he is giving to their detailed suggestions.

I have held meetings with and written to the General Council of British Shipping, the National Union of Seamen and the other maritime unions. I am still considering some of their detailed suggestions.

Following the Minister's answer on Friday at c. 291 of Hansard, has he seen the representatives of the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association, who say that they are alarmed to read the comments by the military that they were expecting far higher casualty rates and loss of ships than occurred during the south Atlantic conflict? That could only mean that the Government were prepared to sacrifice merchant ships and seafarers in the exercise. It was a unilateral decision and there were no discussions between the professional associations—

Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Why were there no discussions between the National Union of Seamen, the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association and others involved before these decisions were taken?

The general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question is offensive rubbish. What was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence is a matter for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what number and value of blankets were bought for the overseas aid programme in the last year; and what are his plans for forthcoming years.

Since August 1981 over 40,000 blankets costing about £150,000 have been bought from British aid funds for disaster victims.

I am pleased to hear that news, even though it is not complete. Is the Minister aware that Dewsbury makes excellent blankets and that there are many more available to enable the Government to fulfil the requirements of the disaster programme?

I note the hon. Gentleman's plug for his constituency.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the tragedy that is enveloping Ethiopia once again. Will he assure the House that it is much upon this country's conscience to do what it can to help? If this country and other relatively prosperous countries do not help, hundreds of thousands of people will starve yet again.

I am well aware of what has been happening there. On Friday I announced that we were supplying £250,000 for relief.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value of projects in the Philippines being assisted by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

The total is £11·4 million: a loan of £5 million to the Private Development Corporation of the Philippines and a loan of £6.4 million to the National Development Corporation—Guthrie Plantations Inc. for an oil palm project.

Is there still time for the Minister to postpone final approval of the CDC plan to invest in a plantation project at La Paz and Loreto until he has investigated reports of the appearance of armed groups of paramilitaries similar to the Lost Command who resort to extortion from and intimidation of workers? Will the Minister take steps to ensure, if possible, the removal of any such terrorists from the area before the CDC receives the final go-ahead for its investment plans?

The project is going ahead. Both the CDC and I are satisfied that the arrangements that it has made for monitoring the undertakings that it received will be effective. The CDC has the right to withhold loan disbursements after 30 June if those undertakings are not observed to its satisfaction.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed investment by the CDC in the Philippines will improve the economy and produce for the first time in that poor area a cash crop which will so strengthen the peasants that they will be able to resist the blandishments and force of the paramilitary groups that have been operating there?

I believe that my hon. Friend is right. The new security force is being trained and should replace the present one by the end of June.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the total official development assistance to be made available for development in Gibraltar during the present financial year; and if he will make a statement.

I expect that total development assistance to Gibraltar in the present financial year will be about £2 million. This includes initial expenditure on projects being financed from the £13 million development aid grant which was agreed last year.

In view of the uncertainties about the implementation of the Lisbon agreement and the importance of Gibraltar having a viable economy without overdependence on Spain, will the Minister develop and publish a development plan for the economy dealing particularly with land use? Is it not a public disgrace that the admiral commanding the dockyard occupies a garden of some 3·5 hectares of developable land and that Rosia bay, probably the principal development site on the island, is used for a civil servants' swimming club? Will he look into these matters?

I shall consider, but with some scepticism, the point made by the hon. Gentleman in the last part of his question. Overall we have allocated a reasonable sum for the development of Gibraltar. I believe that it should do the job effectively.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the comments made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) about the garden and Rosia bay show his utter ignorance of what is happening in Gibraltar. We want the economy of Gibraltar—

The hon. Member must ask a question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that £13 million is inadequate for the future economy of Gibraltar and that it is high time we had a decision on whether the naval dockyard is to be commercialised?

As I have already said, I believe that we have allocated a reasonable sum for development which will do the job. The commercialisation of the dockyard is complicated and should be considered carefully. I hope that before too long we shall be able to announce our conclusions.

Does the Minister agree that the most effective way to help Gibraltar, and any other country seeking development aid, is for the Government to authorise immediate expenditure of 0·7 per cent. of gross domestic product to cope with the schemes mentioned by hon. Members? Does he accept that money being spent on aid programmes would be better directed to the poorest countries and that it cannot be argued that Gibraltar is one?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the aid commitments to Pakistan for 1983 to assist with the Afghan refugee problem; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a written reply to my hon. Friend on 24 February, said:

"We remain deeply concerned about the plight of the Afghan refugees."—[Official Report, 24 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 501.]

I welcome my right hon. Friend's splendid announcement. However, does he agree that the magnitude of the problem, when one third of Afghanistan's population have moved out, with 3 million going to Pakistan, calls for an extraordinary effort to be made, not just by the Government, but by as many of our friends in the free world as we can contact? Will my right hon. Friend draw the Government's generosity to the attention of the countries of the Commonwealth, the Common Market and the United States of America and suggest that others should give as generously as we have done?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I shall certainly consider the point that he has just made. There is no doubt that 3 million refugees from Afghanistan represent one of the most disgraceful episodes of recent history.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the proposal made in the Brandt commission's report "Common Crisis" that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development aid-givers should reach the target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product within five years.

We remain committed to the target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product for British official development assistance, but, like the previous Government, we have made it clear that we are not committed to a timetable for its achievement.

Is the Minister aware that other countries, including the Netherlands and those in Scandinavia, contribute a much higher percentage of their GNP? Is it not false for a great country such as Britain to say that it cannot set a reasonable timetable for achieving the development assistance target? With a percentage of 0·44 of GNP, we are one of the lowest in the league table of advanced countries.

I am aware that some countries give a higher percentage of their GNP, but for 1981 the OECD average was 0·35 per cent. against our contribution of 0·44 per cent. We were above the average level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country has made, and perhaps will again make, an even greater contribution through preventive medicine? As one of the recommendations of the Brandt commission relates to work being done by British voluntary agencies, can my right hon. Friend tell us how greater Government assistance could be given to those agencies?

I am prepared to consider that matter carefully, and I should like to talk to my hon. Friend about it.

Will the Government be publishing a White Paper giving a detailed point-by-point response to "Common Crisis"?

I expect that before long there will be a debate in the House, during which the Government will make clear their views on "Common Crisis".