Reference..........
Hong Kong: Textiles
There are one or two points I think I should make for the record on the anticipated stream of telegrams from Hong Kong.
2.
Telegram No.661: When it is said (para.3(1)(A) that there was no point in having a Hong Kong advisory board if London was to decide what should be done, it should be borne in mind that it was not until April 1st this year that the Cotton Advisory Board was renamed the Textile Advisory Board. Clearly, having regard to the constitutional position, the nature of the advice which the T.A.B. could give on non-cotton textiles is essentially different from that on cotton textiles. Do we know whether the position was made clear to those concerned?
3. The United Kingdom government does not consult trade associations during negotiations (see para.3(1)(E) and para.6) and the Hong Kong government have only themselves to blame if the practice of consultation lands them in difficulties.
4.
The United Kingdom government has made the position quite clear para. 4(A)
regarding the ilong Kong government's authority to conduct negotiations. We told them in the Swedish case for example that the United Kingdom would agree to a restraint on shirts but not to a restraint on blouses and knitted underwear unless and until the Swedish case had been probed further and we had had an opportunity of considering the position. Mr. Jordan did not like this, but in the end was forced to accept it.
5. Telegram No.659: Paragraph 3 records that, while the unofficial members of the Executive Council expressed very strong views on the vital need for Hong Kong to be in a position effectively to determine its on trade policies to the maximum extent, they also recognised that this must be subject to full
· consultations between Hong Kong and the United Kingdon where there is any conflict of interest. The key words in this paragraph are "maximum extent" and "full consultations". I suggest that Mr. Jordan knew that there would be a conflict of interest in this case and I do not see how it can be said in this case that we had been fully consulted about Hong Kong's intentions.
6
Telegram No.662: You may have noticed a contradiction between this telegram, which reports the Taiwan authorities as being under the inpression that Hong Kong clearly had no "independent authority to negotiate" and the line taken by the Governor in the other telegrams which he has sent us. I suggest that this is no more than a childish attempt to make our flesh creep. The Hong Kong government could, of course, refuse to administer an inter-industry agreement and did in fact do so to express their dis-satisfaction at our changing over from the inter-industry agreement to the present comprehensive system of controls.
7. Telegram 660: The concept of a package - see para.3 covering cotton and non-cotton raises an important issue of policy which Hong Kong has so far been at pains to avoid. The Canadians would in my view be acting in contravention of the L.T.A. if they tried to tie the two together: Article 4 of the L.T.A. provides for bilateral arrangements only on terms not inconsistent with the basic objectives of the Agreement, and one of those objectives, stated in Article 1, ia that the measures
/taken
1