CONFIDENTIAL
TEXTILES
R&R
NOTE of a meeting held at the Board of Trade, Victoria Street, S.W.1 on 23rd June 1969 to discuss the international position on the import of non-cotton textiles.
Present:
ORENNIAL OW RECCEIVED IN REGISTRY No. 51 16 JUL 1969
HKIL 6/29
Mr. Hughes in the Chair
Mr. Jordan
Mr. Sellers) Hong Kong
Mr. Whitehead
}
F.C.O.
Mr. Carter
Mr. Carey (part of meeting only)
Mr. S. Stewart
Mr. Jupp
Mr. Goldsmith Mr. Dunnett Mr. Keminis Miss Dumble
C.R.E.1.
Men pases 146 relevant.
мен разко
Ind. 1.
Mr. Hughes said that now the talks with the Swedes on their requests for restraints by Hong Kong on exports of certain non-cotton textiles had been satisfactorily concluded, it might be a good time to consider the present position in regard to restrictions on non-cotton textiles in a wider context.
(1)
United States
Referring to recent developments in the U.S. and the line to be adopted by the U.K. towards them, Mr. Hughes said it seemed that even the Americans were not sure how to extricate themselves from their present awkward position. He felt that they would probably do nothing until September and then take the opportunity afforded by the forthcoming review of the LTA by the Cotton Textiles Committee of the GATT to raise the question of restrictions on imports of non-cotton textiles. Mr. Jordan thought it might be possible to go some way to help the Americans by amending slightly the text of Article 9 of the LTA. i.e. to substitute for the present wording "in which cotton represents more than 50% (by weight) of the fibre content" for "in which cotton represents more than 50% (by weight or value) etc." This would bring in the more expensive cotton/mmf mixtures. However, the Americans had given no indication that they were thinking along these lines and might be hoping to persuade Mr. Mills to put his Bill through Congress before the meeting of the Cotton Textiles Committee. They would then be able to take the position in Geneva that if an agreement on non-cotton textiles similar to the LTA were not forthcoming, the U.S. would have to take action under the new Act.
1
CONFIDENTIAL