4
Mr. Hughes then turned to the position that would result should it be decided
that Hong Kong should not enter into a continued restraint agreement with the
Swedes and the new briefing instructions for Hong Kong for the meeting scheduled
to take place in Stockholm from June 16 (which, of course, would have to be
agreed by Ministers after first being put to the Governor of Hong Kong) were
those that Industries 1 would like Hong Kong to follow.
Mr. Jordan reminded the meeting that the Swedes had already stated that they
regarded the consultations as being conducted under the provisions of
Article XXII (1) of the G.A.T.T. There would.seem to be little point in going
to Stockholm with instructions to negotiate along lines that the Swedes would
find impossible to accept.
Mr. Hughes suggested that it would be to the advantage of Hong Kong and the
U.K. if the talks could be kept going for the time being i.e. Mr. Jordan might
offer to extend the existing restraints for a period shorter than one year
say 3 months
G
and refuse new restraints.
In the three months gained the U.K.
and Hong Kong would try to reach agreement on how to proceed over the whole
field of textile restrictions.
Mr. Stewart said that on the new items requested by the Swedes, Hong Kong might
agree to suspend the issue of export authorisations when they reached a certain
level.
This might perhaps be one quarter of the annual figure at which Hong
Kong would have been prepared to offer a restraint. He thought that might be
reasonable.
4
It was not a reasonable
Mr. Jordan said this would still be a restraint.
procedure as export authorisations were issued on a first come/first served
basis and for a period up to one year. If the quantity was limited to three
months, it would, of course, be necessary to allocate the authorisations on a
quota system. In any case, three month long authorisations would not give the
trade time for delivery.
Mr. Hughes said the alternative might be to say to the Swedes that Hong Kong
/did