28
7 July 1982]
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE
Mr Peter Rees, MP, MR C B BENJAMIN and MR A DUNNING
[Mr Maxwell-Hyslop Contd.]
the French increased from 24% to 3%. Those are both OECD countries. Why do you think ours fell from 13% to 34% while the French increased from 24% to 3% and the Germans increased from 6% to 8%?
(Mr Rees.) Obviously this is a matter for speculation, but I think, as I said in answer to an earlier question, perhaps British ex- porters were more focused on the develop- ing opportunities in the European Commu- nity and, after all, Germany and France obviously were founder members of the Community and, therefore, they perhaps were not making this conscious effort to readjustment - that is one factor. Also, of course, from 1973-74 onwards I think you would find, if there were an equivalent table of British exports to the Persian Gulf and the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. that there was a fairly dramatic increase in that part of the world. It may be that there was a shift of emphasis to different markets.
80. I could understand if British indus- try in 1980 was running at full capacity that it could not export to the one and export to the other, but, Minister, it is not self- evidently true that, if you increase your sales effort to Germany and France, and indeed to the Near East, you have to allow it to collapse in Singapore, is it?
(Mr Rees.) Certainly not.
81. Why do you believe that to be an explanation of the collapse in Singapore?
(Mr Rees.) I think perhaps "collapse" is rather a strong term. I am being asked to provide an explanation for the decisions of a whole range of British industries and exporters. In the nature of things I can only theorise, generalise on perhaps limited evi- dence.
82. You think to refer to a down-turn from 13 to 3 per cent. as a collapse is not an appropriate use of the word "collapse", do you not?
(Mr Rees.) With respect this has become a semantic argument.
83. You said you did not agree with the term "collapse"?
(Mr Rees.) I did not say I did not agree, I merely said it was strong language.
84. Does it not seem to you that it is an improbable explanation that you have given because in the same period that Britain for the first time has real access to
[Continued
other EEC countries, including France and Germany, France and Germany in the same period for the first time had free access to Britain. So why is that a satisfactory explanation when the circumstances were reciprocal for the British share of OECD exports to Singapore collapsing from 13 to 31
per cent., while German went up from 6 to 8 per cent. and French went up from 2 to 3 per cent.?
(Mr Rees.) Because it is clear that the export opportunities for British manufac- turers on the continent of Europe as a result of our accession were greater than the export opportunities offered by the acces- sion of Britain to German and French exporters, which were already well en- trenched in the trade market.
85. But since our manufacturers had in that period, did they not, greatly diminished markets why did increasing opportunities in western Europe lead to a collapse of their exports to Singapore? I think this is an important question which needs answering. It is self-evidently true that better opportun- ities, unless you are suggesting they were running at full production, which is surely an untenable proposition, why should im- proved opportunities in western Europe not actually, if anything, make competition disappear in Singapore by getting unit costs down?
(Mr Rees.) You are asking me to theor ise-
86. I am asking you to give information which I hope, as Minister of State at the Department of Trade, you possess.
(Mr Rees.) With great respect you are asking me to theorise; I am not in a position to give information. You are asking me to theorise about the decisions and conduct of a vast number of British industries and exporters. Singapore is a very open market and I cannot identify any obstacles in the Singaporean market and to say I have information which I am not prepared to disclose, if that is your suggestion, is very far from the truth. You are asking me to provide an explanation for trade, I have to say I have offered you two possible expla- nations, neither of which have found favour with you and I cannot take the matter any further.
87. Your Department has not put any great effort in finding out why the British trade to Singapore-
(Mr Rees.) This is why there have been