49
MTG 19/2
Reference
3=2
Mr. Heath, Commodities Dept.
United Kingdom Relations with Hong Kong on Textiles
I have little comment to offer on Mr. Laird's minute of 2 July and apologize for being late, especially as my comments are not particularly central to the argument.
2. First, I wonder whether objective (ii) in para. 11 of the draft submission can be put just like that without any commentary. (I see none in the draft unless I have missed something). Is there not some possible danger of prejudice to our interests vis-à-vis third parties by the devolution of powers in the way suggested, limited though this is? We could for example run some risk (whatever we say by way of explanation to such third parties) of giv- ing the impression of decreased desire to defend Hong Kong's interests: a possible example might be the Generalized Preferences scheme though there could be better examples. I am not suggesting that the risk is high but that there may be a case for mentioning it as a possibility.
3. Secondly, the proposal in para. 13(A) of the draft submission is of course entirely subject to the uncertain outcome of Hong Kong's position as a beneficiary under the Generalised Preferences scheme (not to speak of the enlargement negotiations). But I take it that the sub- mission is directed to the position here and now and do not suggest any amendment.
In Butter
(R.G. Britten)
Trade Policy Department
7 July, 1970.
c.c. to Mr. Laird, Hong Kong Dept.
3
1.