:
2
مناهل
Please see folio 7. you agreed that paper
on which
NOTE OF A MESTING OF THE TEXTILE WORKING PARTY AT 11am 1 NOVEMBER. 1973 AT HILLBANK TOWER
food
The meeting was convened to discuss the draft submission to be made to Ministers conceming the British Textile uplovera' Association's request for continued quota protection for cotton yarne. A list of those present is annexed.
.
than I the
badfellow
(9)
this looks less satisfacting
ought,
In assessing the industry's case MR RIDLEY said that although CT considered the BTTA forecasts conservative in a liberalized regime in terms of potential loss of employment and import penetration the case was not intrinsically strong and would thereby fall very far short of justifying the introduction of new restraints). But three factors should be borne in mind considering total liberalization on 1 January 1974.
2.
the support which the whole textile industry had given to our ESC policies would be seriously prejudiced in the event of the spinners making a major political argument; b. similarly at risk, though perhaps not strictly logically, were the confidence of the industry, and its investment plans; and
C.
there were 20 marginal seats in Lancashire, half of which were in spinning areas a relevant consideration in a pre-election period.
MR ALLOTT Suggested that our obligation to end the restrictions provided a loose card' to be played in Brussels in order to gain acceptance of our view that existing restraints which could not be justified under the stricter criteria of the new CATT multifibre agreement should be phased out over a relatively short period. Rather than taking the negative stance of requesting
a derogation, we should put this forward as a test case and offer to phase out the restrictions provided other Member States adopted the same policy and put it into practice. MR RIDLEY welcomed this suggestion.
3 In answer to a question by MR HAZLE as to whether the inclusion of cotton yam on the Common Liberalization Iist meant genuine freedom for imports of cotton yam, CT replied that they were still subject to unofficial non-tariff barriers in certain Merber States. The UK would not be embarrassed by a general discussion in Brussels of cotton yam imports.
4 CT agreed that more weight in the submission should be given to the phasing out element, and to the ammmnition for the anti-Common Market lobby which liberalization in 1974 would provide.
5 MISS LACKY suggested that our credibility in Brussels would be seriously prejudiced if UK renered on her WC obligations at a still early stage in the transition period, and that a major row night result, particularly as the Community suffered a higher import meretration than UK on this item. HR RIDLEY said that such a situation night well be advantageous to us as it should lead to a thorough consideration of the overall divergencies in 70 textile policies.
6 Whilst acknowledging reservation of positions rade by CR and FCO EN RIDLAY suggested that the submission should be redrafted to reflect the importance of the points discrased. It was armoed that if our derogation was to be presented as 2 phasing out rather than a retention of restrictions there would have to be substantial quota increases over the three year period. Of would work out some figures for progress by steps from the present situation to a notional figure for fully liberalized imports fron restricted soirees in 1977.
Should
ميس منه
Res
"|5