2.
(e)
The representative of the British Textile
Confederation stressed that the credibility of
Mr Chataway's declared policy on low cost imports
of textiles was at stake.
We pressed the delegation to identify the sectors of the
industry which they considered most important, but they were
unwilling to do so. They continued to argue that total
protection, covering all the products of the industry, was
needed. We do not believe that this view can be regarded as
consistent with the policy defined in the Minister I.D.'s
letter to Mr Lewando, nor with our declared attitude towards
the E.E.C.'s policies on low cost imports of textiles. It is
a vital element in both these policies that protection should
be selective and that it should only be given where there is
a clear need, and where it is likely to lead to longer term
viability.
3. Our submission of 14 December concluded that the most
cubstantial areas of import penetration were weft knitted
cotton shirts, and children's underwear. These are both
low value added products, with which we do not believe there
is any real prospect of our being able to compete. Effective
restrictions on them would, in the light of the industry's
own figures of comparative price, be likely to mean
significantly higher prices to consumers.
Looking at shirts
alone U.K. production in terms of value increased more during
1971 than did total imports. In quantity U.K. manufacturers
slightly increased both their production and their share of
the market during 1971.
2.