C. & I, 200
2700206
50x100-7/67-B55641
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS:-
"CANDIHONG" HONG KONG
OUR REF.:
YOUR REF.:
RESTRICTED
COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT,
FIRE BRIGADE BUILDING.
HONG KONG.
CR/EIC 294/5/11/5
IND.1/60/G5
Dear Peter,
BY AIR MAIL
II
15 August
14/€ (16)
(14/E
I have just seen your letter of 6 August to Eric Ho (who has now left this department) about
growth on wide sheeting and sheets. As almost the only survivor of the actual consultations in 1968, I think I must (before I leave the department next month) say that I cannot support the view that it was understood between us at the conclusion of the September 1968 talks that growth on the new quotas had been fixed at 3 per cent.
70
196
The fact is that during the actual consultations i.e. when Shaun Stewart, supported by Bunny Carter, faced me across the table on 5 and 6 September 1968, neither side mentioned growth at all. I don't know why Shaun didn't raise it. I didn't because I took the view that it was up to Shaun to propose any amendment to the Heads of Agreement that he sought. To the extent that he did not do so, the Heads of Agreement would of course continue in force. other words, unless he proposed, and we reached agreement on, amendment of the growth provisions in the Heads of Agree- ment, there would be no change.
In
Since the suggestion that I agreed to 3% growth continues to be made, I feel I must emphasise that growth was never mentioned during the consultations.
The proposal was made in a note that Stewart, who left Hong Kong early the following morning, i.e. 7 September 1968, pushed under Carter's hotel room door before he left. Carter brought the note round to the department after Stewart's departure.
I took the line that the consultations had been completed; that they had concluded with a package deal; and that the package could not be partially re-opened to accommodate a proposal from one side only. Stewart had
had his opportunity to raise this before the package was tied up and had not done so. There was no mutual agree- ment on any changes to the growth provisions in the Heads of Agreement and they therefore remained unchanged.
If Stewart had in the actual consultations pro- posed that growth should be limited to 3%, I should of course have wished to reconsider the other constituents of the package.
I regret/