VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state the balance of trade figures between the United Kingdom and the Argentine for the last five years for which figures are available.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN)My Lords, the value of imports c.i.f. from, and exports and re-exports f.o.b. to, the Argentine Republic are given in Volume 1 of the Annual Statements of Trade of the United Kingdom for the years 1963 to 1966 and, for 1967, in Table IV of the December Overseas Trade Accounts. The difference between these figures is not, however, a good measure of the visible trade balance because, for instance, of the differences in the basis of valuation.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, the reason for asking this Question was the hope that I should get an authoritative Answer from Her Majesty's Government, because of the very difficulty which the noble Lord has just pointed out—the difficulty of interpreting these figures. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give any further help.
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, I can help the noble Lord a little further, I think. Over the five years to the end of 1967 the average United Kingdom balance of trade deficit with the Argentine was £50 million per annum, although the figure in 1967 was approximately £47 million, but 672 if what I might call the f.o.b.-c.i.f. factor, which I hope is understood, is introduced, it will reduce that balance by approximately £10 million per annum; this is a rather approximate figure. The invisibles, however, have also to be taken into account. Here I am in difficulties because the calculation is highly involved and not necessarily very accurate, and in addition it is built up on the basis of some figures which are supplied to the Board of Trade on a confidential basis. All I can say is that the figure would make a substantial further adjustment to that figure of £50 million.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer, which of course is very involved and a difficult one on which to make a snap decision. Should I be right in assuming that there is certainly no substantial balance at the end of it in our favour? I would not go further than that, but ask whether the noble Lord would agree it is the case that there is no substantial balance in our favour.
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, I think the fact of the matter is that there is a balance certainly in favour of the Argentine. Whether one would apply the adjective "substantial" or not depends on what one means by the word, but it is considerable.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. That being the case, I wonder whether he would agree with me that if one takes the somewhat imponderable answer, which I shall have to fathom out later, and then considers the compensation which we have paid for foot-and-mouth disease—£26 million or whatever it is—and also the fatstock guarantee payments, the idea that we are getting cheap meat from the Argentine is a bit of a myth?
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, that question goes rather beyond the ambit of the original Question and I should prefer that a further Question were put down, in which case no doubt my noble friend the Minister of Agriculture would be able to answer it.