TNAG-1361-FCO40-1807-Hong-Kong-Hansard-reports-and-minutes-of-the-meetings-of-the-1985 — Page 102

4

by factors other than market forces, and that the value-added

contribution of our exports to China tends to be less than that

of our exports to the markets of the industrialised nations.

Suggested measures

This brings me to my third observation. Following the

comprehensive study made of our economy by the Advisory Committee on Diversification in 1979, the Industry Department

guided by the Industrial Development Board have made strenuous efforts to encourage the importation of technology via

industrial investment promotion, and to create and maintain

those back-up services and facilities which our manufacturers need to improve their output. After a passage of seven years the time has come, I think, to take stock generally, and particularly on two main issues, namely, the scope for

improving the output of various manufacturing industries and,

secondly, the representational role of our overseas offices.

Dealing, first, with our overseas offices: while I

think that the level of our representational activities in multilateral issues has been both laudable and adequate, I do

not think that enough is being done within the United States

and the EEC. In the case of our offices in the U.S.

my recent

experience in accompanying the Trade Department's delegations

to Washington reinforces my suspicion that there is just not enough manpower to do all that needs to be done. My suspicions apply with equal force to the European scene. We need more manpower of sufficiently high calibre to influence national

opinion, which has a marked effect on Community policy, in our favour. This could perhaps be achieved, by extending the Brussels Office's activities to the capitals of some of the

Member States. Bonn, Paris and Rome, in addition to London, come to mind. There is a case for doing much more than we have

done in the way of promoting Hong Kong's case, whatever the