ibres, dresses of all fibres etc).
etc). The argument is less strong in
any set of import restrictions which does not amount to comprehensive
quotas. But we must face the fact that although restrictions on a
multi-fibre basis are both logical and a probable development in the
not too distant future, we should by imposing them in 1972 again be
ahead of the pack internationally since the only notable example of
such quotas at present is the recently imposed Canadian restriction on
imports of shirts. This would again have implications for our support
of an internationally agreed solution but more importantly would put us
seriously out of step with the EEC since we shall be committed to
conforming with their import restrictions on cotton textiles alone on
entry. There does not therefore seem to be sufficient justification
for us to impose multi-fibre quotas in 1972.
22. The only remaining option that we should consider is to have
separate quotas on directly competing mmf products if we decide to
have any import restrictions on cotton textiles in 1972. The argument in favour of this is not in our view very strong since imports of mmf products are not presenting us. with an immediate problem as far as our domestic industry is concerned and our present imports of these products
do not necessarily come from the same countries as the imports of cotton
textiles which are currently causing problems in Lancashire. In the
event of a problem arising on imports of man made fibre textiles during
1972 we believe that we could take quick action to deal with it as and when this became necessary.
23. From all the above we conclude that we should not now decide to
take any action to restrict imports of non-cotton textiles in advance of
a threat to our industry actually materialising. We believe, however, that we should continue to work for international consideration of the problems of trade in textiles generally and also attempt to consult informally with the EEC on a possible joint annrasch