TNAG-0142-FCO40-178-Long-term-policy-on-International-trade-in-textiles-1969 — Page 88

-3-

Our case on shirts is also very strong. Here you have quoted the wrong figures. U.h. imports of cotton shirts in 1908 totalled 20.2 milliono, not 13.5 millions, and imports from long Kong totalled 19.9 millions and not 9.3 millions, A similar mistako eus made in the case of ann-xaue fibre ohiris, whero the total should have been 8.1 millions not 1.3 millions; and for Hong Kong 403,000, not 387,000. It lo true that in the first six months of this year importa cf cotton shirts were only slightly higher than they were in the first six months of last year, but in the case of man-made fibre shirts there was a very big increase from 4.3 millions to 5.9 millions and in this case Hong Kong's share increased over the same period from 207,000 to 884,000. Imported shirts increased their share of U.. market from 32 to 39 per cent between 1967 and 1960 and all the evidence suggests that there has Leon a further increase in the first half of thin your. Froduction has fallen very substantially, which is presumably why you kero unable to ony no more by way of criticism of cur case then that "re is no evidence that the U.. is in any worse position than the others". liowever, in two out of the three other capes, (0.3.2 C-mnda and Sveden) you have in fact elrendy

conceded restraint.

I hope that I have said enough by way of illustration to show that there is nothing in your letter which contradicts anything which we have teen saying about the strength of the U.K. case for restricting imports from Hong Kong, should we decide to put one forward. I would obreos that we have not reuched thio decision, and no greatly hope that such a stop will not be necessary But you should not underestimate the increasing pressure to a.c under from our domestic industry who watc. closely what arrangements are negotiated with other countries. We cannot indefinitely restrain them from applying to us to take action where they judge that there is a case of actual or potential injury which could be made out under Article XIX.

Jince you have thought it necessary to copy your letter widely in Whitehall I feel bound to copy this reply also to Goldenith, Curoy, Gallagher, Wilford, Sellers and Jordan - but not to Cello - although I in fact regarded the com.unication as Leing on a personal Lasis,

Yours ever.

Shaun stewart.

(S. STEWART)