-5-
the number of jobs safeguarded, is small by comparison with the run-down in employment which the industry has faced and continues to face. Its cost on the other hand is considerable, to consumers, to other industries, and to the UK's wider interests in the health of the international trading system. This essentially is the case
for a different regime after 1986.
18. However the industries have disputed Professor Silberston's findings. They say he overestimates the cost of the MFA to consumers and thus to the economy generally, and underestimates the effects, notably on profitability and employment, if it were to be relaxed. They stress the complexity and interdependence of the TC industries, and dispute the arguments for distinguishing the case of clothing from that of textiles.
Basic Options
19. There are of course many permutations, but Ministers might focus on 4 basic options:-
20.
(i) Carry on as at present (or as nearly as proves
negotiable); which would presumably imply a subsequent phasing-out stage;
(ii)
A new and implicitly final MFA with the same structure as present, but faster average growth rates (eg 10% on average compared to 2-3% at present);
(iii) Abandon quotas but retain a mechanism along present lines to apply a temporary brake to major export surges. This would entail surveil- lance of imports and a provision to impose temporary quotas if their growth in any sector exceeded a stated maximum;
(iv) To abandon special treatment for TC imports
after 1986, relying as necessary on the normal GATT safeguards and anti-dumping rules.
There are then possible variations to consider: indeed some of the above may need to be varied or combined in order to make them negotiable:-
(a)
(b)
A more restrictive regime for clothing than for textiles (as suggested by Silberston on the ground that clothing has further to go to catch up with international competition) on the other hand clothing is less concentrated geographically;
Excluding some of the present 123 products from control (especially materials needed by the clothing industry);
(c) Better treatment for poorest LDCs vis-a-vis
the less poor effectively this means Hong Kong being squeezed again);
-5-