RESTRICTED
2.
Another point has just occurred to us and seems to need further clarification. In 1975 we should be cut back to 15% or the absolute figure, whichever is higher, but what is to be the fate of those beneficiaries who in the future qualify as 'privileged'? Would they be cut back to a 15% butoir (from 50%) or would they preserve their absolute figures until the 15% butoir catches up with them (i.e. probably never given a 10 year life span for the GSP)? Clearly there is a possibility of more discrimination against Hong Kong and Yugoslavia.
And it occurs to us, as a general point, that ̧1 the uncertainty that may be involved for all beneficiary countries, could almost entirely nullify the scheme. The scheme itself is not going to induce new investment in beneficiary countries if the future benefits are very uncertain.
If you agree that there would be advantage in our having a discussion before you finalise your submission to Ministers, we could be with you on any day from 7th to 16th October (both inclusive). I have to be back to meet van Orschont and other Dutchmen, on 18th October. It would of course be very help- ful if it were possible for you to give us an idea of your thoughts on the GSP proposals before then so that we could do any necessary consultation here before leaving.
Another thought that has occurred to us is to wonder whether it might not be a good idea for the man responsible for your work on GSP to come and have a look at Hong Kong. I imagine it would be John Ingram but whoever you nominated would be very welcome. I hope you would agree that those of you who have been here have found it useful to have some first-hand experience of the place. We would, of course, be prepared to meet the costs and fare (economy only, I'm afraid) and a subsistence allowance.
I am sending this letter by hand of Teddy Kidd, with
a copy to Andrew Stuart.
Mr. P.S. Preston, C.B.
CRE 2,
Department of Trade, Millbank lower", London
Yours.
Saint
ww
(D.H. Jordan)
Director of Commerce and Industry
RESTRICTEO