dd not take a firm line at that stage but tended to the Trade
view on the grounds of not wanting to damage relations with the
supplying countries concerned, in particular Hong Kong. But there
was clearly a need for a compromise between the positions adopted
by Mr Benn and Mr Shore, without giving way on important points of
principle.
.7.
Mr Benn's letter of 13 December sought a compromise by suggest-
ing a more selective approach on individual knitwear items, i.e.
refusing to apply restraints on items where there is no current
threat of disruption at all but going along with Community-wide
restraints where there was a case of sorts. At the same time
Mr Benn would propose to seek better than average Community growth
rates and would be prepared to invoke the flexibility provisions of
the burden sharing formula in order unilaterally to admit higher
imports into the UK if the market situation justified it.
8. While Mr Shore, in his letter of 23 December, seeks clarifica-
tion regarding certain points of detail, he agrees, albeit with much
reluctance, with the general line proposed by Mr Benn. I think that
FCO Ministers should agree likewise. The burden sharing argument is
important: it would be a pity if we were to miss the bus and not be
able to apply the burden sharing formula on knitwear if we bad to
introduce restraints later on in 1975. The increasing problems
facing the UK textile industry, though not a specific FCO responsi-
bility, must also be taken into account. The interests of our own
suppliers ought not in practice to be too seriously affected provided
that:-
(a) the approach is genuinely selective;
(b)
generous, growth rates can be secured;
(o) the UK is prepared, as Mr Benn proposes, to admit higher
imports from these countries if the market situation