TNAG-0389-FCO40-435-Visit-of-trade-mission-of-the-London-Chamber-of-Commerce-and-1973 — Page 35

towards

greater

Thoney

WFP

Го

RECEIVE

PA 2= 72

Reference

ス

Mr GoodfeИow (IIKIOL)

1.

- 7 JAN 1974

HLAK 6/5+8/140

I spoke to Miss Kelly about a reply to Sir Patrick eilly's letter of 31 October to the PUS on his visit to Japan and Hong Kong as leader of the London Chamber of Commerce Mission. There are a number of points raised in the letter which fall within our purview, and we should be grateful if you would take the following into consideration in your reply.

2. Paragraph 4. The DTI have for some time been moving selectivity in the choice of Missions and their members and Posts' views are now given much more weight than they were. Lord Thorneycroft, Chairman of 313, is on record as saying recently that Missions would not be mounted against the advice of Posts.

3. Paragraph 6. As you may know, the Chief Inspector recommended after his recent Inspection of Tokyo a considerable increase in the staff of the Commercial

Department there. PED have accepted the recommendations, which included the appointment of a Commercial Counsellor.

4. Paragraph 7. We naturally cannot comment on the reception of the Mission in Osaka without knowing the circumstances. A study of the report which the Chamber are required to give the DII in due course may bring these out. But it seems at least possible that the Mission's aims in usaka were not properly described to the Post. Sir Reilly was, of course, right to make encouraging noises about Japanese investment in the

UK.

5. Paragraphs 8-11. I think you already know our views on the points raised here. On the accommodation question, I understand that the matter has been referred back to Mr Aston for further costings.

6.

Paragraph 12. It is true that the LTI give little encouragement to Design Centre exhibitions (these are usually put on with FCO money, administered by IAD); but I think it would be fair to say that this is because they are bound to give priority from the limited funds available to "hard sell" exhibitions. In other words they do not believe that Design Centre exhibitions have no commercial value, but that they are less cost effective in this sense than British exhibitions at recognised trade fairs.

Cc: FED

GIPD

9 November 1973

DFBallentyne

Trade Relations and Exports Department

DD 145177 219242 500M 4/73 GM 3643/2