Souch China Morning Post
7/12/71
肇
Textiles face
new threat
The statement by a Government spokesman
seems to indicate that a final decision has yet to be taken by London on the question of future imports of cotton textiles from Hongkong,
As far as Government is concerned, the situation today is as stated in July that as from next month quotas on woven cotton textile goods will be replaced by a tariff of 15 per cent on cloth and 17 per cent on garments.
The spokesman, however, significantly recalls a November 29 statement in the House of Commons by an official of the Ministry of Trade and Industry during a debate on the British textile industry.
The official then said that "Government is considering, in the light of the employment situation and recent international developments in the textile trade, whether there is need for further action at the present time in relation to the industry".
By recalling that statement, the spokesman seems to imply that the British government may be having second thoughts on its July proposal.
Significantly, the statement followed a widely publicised report in Britain by a Lancashire “support campaign” group which claimed that “cheap” products had forced the closure of 59 additional textile mills and that 20 others were about to put up their shutters.
The campaign spokesman added that the. proposed tariff's which are to be introduced on January 1 would be less adequate (protection) than quotas and would increase the flow of the
• "cheap" products into Britain.
The campaign leader in Oldham, Mr Edmund Gartside, in fact, demanded not only cancellation of the tariff idea but an enlargement of the scope of quotas to include all kinds of textile goods.
The sudden departure of such a top-level team as the Financial Secretary, Mr C. P. Haddon- Cave, and the Deputy Director of Commerce and Industry, Mr Eric Ho, to London for textile discussions suggests that some important issues have arisen to require their personal attendance.
If the indirect reports that quotas are to be re- imposed in addition to the proposed tariffs are true, the proposal must be fought tooth and nail.
Hongkong has been making sacrifices to Lancashire interests since 1959 a scapegoat for their chronic afflictions, for the "cheap" products complained have come mostly from other territories wellknown to Lancashire.
Whitehall has more than a moral obligation to protect Hongkong from unjustified trade restrictions and to safeguard her economic stability and the livelihood of her people,