§ 2.47 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy 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 how it is that the United Kingdom is not participating in the Asian Trade Fair in New Delhi, accompanying the 25th anniversary of Indian independence in which fifty nations are joining.
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, there is no collective British participation by Her Majesty's Government at the Asian Trade Fair in New Delhi, which is being held from November 3 to December 17, 1972, because there has been no call for such support from British exporters. However, many firms established in India and having British connections are taking part.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the Minister aware of the deep disappointment in India, to put it mildly, that Britain is not represented in this fair, which is both a national and an international occasion? Is it not part of the 338 25th anniversary of Indian Independence, and is it not the largest international event that has ever been staged in India? Will not our failure to participate prejudice the good will which we achieved by our understanding of India and Bangladesh?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I believe that the Trade Fair has now become part of the celebration of the 25th anniversary, although when India first decided to hold the Fair it was not envisaged that it necessarily would be. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, it is not very much good having a British pavilion at a trade fair unless British firms, in their own commercial judgment, think it worth while to participate—indeed, it might be counter-productive. There was no enthusiasm among British exporters for participating.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, did Her Majesty's Government seek to encourage British manufacturers to take part in this exhibition? Would the noble Lord agree that we lost out very heavily in South America as a consequence of the attitude adopted by British industry to the Asian Fair? We have lost a lot of trade; the Germans, the Italians and the French are all there, but the British are failing. Does the noble Lord think that it would have been right from the point of view of the trade gains—apart from the political gains—for us to be present?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, this is a question of judgment, of course, but after all industrial fairs and trade fairs are essentially matters for trade at which you sell your goods; they are not political occasions. The fact is that we have exhibited at the two previous Asian Fairs and we found by experience there that, in terms of sales resulting, it was difficult to justify participation. In addition, one has to remember that it is not only a question of selling in the Indian market but also of getting import licensing, which is not very easy?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, setting aside the political considerations, would not the noble Lord agree that there may have been difficulties in the past about business arising as a consequence of shortage of funds available in India but one needs to look at the long-term interests of industry; that these exhibitions are a 339 shop window not of the present manufacturers only but also of the future; and is it not wrong to prejudice them?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, this is a question of judgment which was carefully considered at the time when a decision had to be taken some 18 months ago. I can only repeat that inquiries were made as to whether there would be support for our exhibiting at the fair and it was found, on the basis of previous experience, and also because of its exceptional length, that there was very little support for participating.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there was any question of British Government financial support as a contribution to this Fair?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, had it been decided to participate there would have been the usual support that is made available to trade fairs; there would have been a British pavilion, with all the usual support that is given to those who exhibit in the pavilion.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what would be the minimum number of British firms required to participate to justify Government assistance and help?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I should need notice of that question. I should have thought that this would depend on the circumstances in each case.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is it not the case that the United Kingdom, the United States and China are the only large nations which are abstaining; that 48 nations, including France, West Germany, Sweden, the Soviet Union and Canada, are all participating? Is it not very short-sighted for our industries not to be represented there when, despite immediate foreign exchange difficulties, the longer programme means Indian industrialisation which will involve the supply of much equipment from this country?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the arguments the noble Lord advances were carefully considered at the time, but one has to bear in mind that if you have a shop window the presumption is that the goods are going to be immediately available for sale, as of course they would 340 be, but there is the difficulty of selling in the market at the present time. Exporters have to judge where their interests lie, and so of course have the British Government in giving support, within a limited budget, to trade fairs.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree from his commercial experience, let alone his political experience, that once you have lost a market it is almost impossible to get it back?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I would not say that it is impossible. It is always expensive to get a market back. But this is not the possibility that we are envisaging since there is no reason to suppose that we shall lose the market because we have not participated in this Fair. Had we thought so, we should have participated.
§ LORD FERRIERMy Lords, would not the Minister agree that the position of Britain with regard to India is quite different from that of any other country? Secondly, would he not agree that sniping of this nature may well detract from the value of the part taken by existing British trade interests in the Fair?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, it is the case, as my noble friend indicates, and as I have already said, that British firms in India are participating in the Fair and this in itself should help to maintain the reputation of British goods and British interests there.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, is not this lukewarm approach indicative of the reasons why we have not kept pace with other industrial nations in increasing our share of world trade? Is it not up to the Government to do everything possible to encourage our industrialists to take every possible advantage in this regard because it is so important to us as a nation? Instead of a diminution of our part in world trade, should we not increase it?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the purpose of participating in an international fair of this kind is to sell goods now.
§ LORD BROWNMy Lords, I understand some of the difficulties of the Department of Trade and Industry in this matter but I think the noble Lord would 341 help to calm the feelings of the House if he could positively answer this question. Was the failure to provide a pavilion for this international Fair (it is not only an Indian Fair) clue to a lack of intention by British exporters to take part in it?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, that is my information: they were consulted and given the opportunity of saying whether they thought we should participate in the Fair, and there was insufficient support from them to justify our participating.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a last, very simple question? Can he explain why it is that Her Majesty's Government have refused to participate in this Fair, which is obviously of the greatest importance to this country?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I had thought that I had answered this question several times already—
§ LORD DRUMALBYN—and I do not think I ought to go over the reasons again.