TNAG-0154-FCO40-190-Exports-of-cotton-textiles-to-Canada-1970 — Page 70

- 2

8. Stewart. Esq..M.C.

8th September, 1969.

sector. I might also add that, in every other item for which you have produced figures, overall imports (on the basis of the "one market" concept you have used) are less than 20% of apparent consumptionand would therefore presumably not be serious candidates for restraint on any basis.

4. To illustrate this point I will take some examples. In the case of men's and boys' trousers, which show the highest percentage of imports, U.K. production has nevertheless been increasing in every year since 1965. Of imports of 18.8. million pairs in 1968 as much as 17.5 million were cotton and only 1.2 million were n.n.f. In the case of imports from Hong Kong cotton accounted for 13.5. million pairs and m.m.f. for less than 750,000. Likewise, in the case of shirts, imports of cotton shirts amounted to 12.3 million (of which 9.3 million were from Hong Kong) while m.n.f. only came to 1.3 million (of which 387,000. were from Hong Kong). In the case of men's and boys' nightwear the overall position is a little more even (3.5 million cotton and 1.1. million m.n.f.) but Hong Kong's share is concentrated even more on cotton (2.7 million cotton and only 24,000 m.m.f.). There is a similar position in undergarments (overall imports 5.9 million cotton and 2.7 million m.m.f. but Hong Kong 2.6 million cotton and 389,000 m.m.f.). Only in coats and waistcoats is the position a little more respectable from your point of view (overall imports cotton 1.1 million, u.m.f. 575,000; Hong Kong cotton 586,000, m.m.f. 302,000). In this case, however, imports from Hong Kong of cotton and m.m.f. together account for only 11% of apparent consumption.

5. I might add that in the other items, where overall imports are less than 20% of apparent consumption, the same pattern shows up, namely Hong Kong's share being heavily concentrated on cotton. Even in the famous case of jumpers, cardigans, etc. of wool and n.m.f. (where Hong Kong is currently restraining to Sweden and Norway, she used to restrain to Germany and she is doing well in the U.S. market) her share of U.K. apparent consumption is only 7.9%. On those sort of figures we would not even consider restraint on an "Article XIX-type" case.

6. Your second set of tables make a comparison of the markets for shirts and for sweaters (jumpers, cardigans, etc.) in the U.K., U.S., Canada and Sweden. In the case of shirts there is evidence that all four markets face considerable competition from imports. But there is no evidence that the U.K. is in any worse position than the others. Furthermore, imports of woven shirts into the U.K. have been steady or even falling slightly and they are very heavily concentrated on cotton. The increase in imports has been in knitted shirts, again I should imagine mainly cotton. This I feel is a question of taste and market demand rather than anything else. In the case of sweaters there is little doubt that the U.K. market is the least disrupted of those shown (imports 16.5% of production plus imports as compared with 75% in Sweden and over 40% in the United States). There is no basis here on which the U.K. could sustain a voluntary restraint

case.

..../3