British Overseas Trade Board Funding (Hansard, 8 May 1985)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)
My Lords, the Government place great importance on the restraint of public expenditure and the British Overseas Trade Board budget must take its share of the necessary economies.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister explain how it makes sense, if the Government are concerned with the deficit in manufacturing trade that has appeared over the past two years for the first time since the beginning of the industrial revolution, to cut the resources of the board that they themselves have set up in order to encourage exports?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, a cut in monetary terms does not mean necessarily that any less endeavour in the promotion of exports takes place.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the total expenditure envisaged under this head, referred to by my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby, is approximately one-third of the amount that the Japanese Government paid in order to secure a contract for the Bosporus bridge for their own companies?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I really feel that the Bosporus bridge and the financing arrangements undertaken by the Japanese are extraordinarily wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, can the noble Lord indicate whether the amounts that our competitors are devoting to export promotion are comparable with our own, and whether this is kept regularly under review?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, yes. I can confirm that the amounts and the methods by which we aid overseas trade effort are broadly the same. I discussed this with the German Minister responsible only three weeks ago and she confirmed that broadly we were in accord.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, in pursuance of the Answer that the Minister gave me first, will he tell the House whether the Government are concerned about the deficit in manufacturing trade? If so, may I repeat my question? How does it make any sense to reduce the resources—and I repeat the word "resources"? Whereas the noble Lord may consider that a reduction in money is not reducing resources, he must know that it is not just money that has been reduced but that, as a result of the money being reduced, the staff has also been reduced. How does it make any sense, if the Government are concerned with this deficit in manufacturing trade, for them to cut the resources of the body that they have themselves set up in order to encourage exports?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, the Government are concerned at the deficit. We think that, at the end of this year, we shall on current account be in balance. That the value of the British Overseas Trade Board's allotment of governmental funds is going to be less in real terms does not mean that this is the only figure that the noble Lord should take into account. As the noble Lord will recall, when my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Overseas Trade of your Lordships' House under my noble friend Lord Aldington, that was the answer to the direct question which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has now asked.

§ Lord Seebohm
My Lords, am I not correct in saying that our exports are at an all-time record?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. They are at an all-time record. It would be unfair of me, however, if I did not add that so also are our imports.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, does that not apply to total exports? And, really, is not the question about manufactured goods?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches wanted to refer to manufactured goods or to total goods. The fact is that, excluding oil exports, our manufactured goods are at an all-time record across the world.