TNAG-0246-FCO40-282-Imports-of-textiles-from-Hong-Kong-to-UK-1970 — Page 57

trade on the basis that the higher growth provisions in the

N.P.4.

Heads of Agreement continued to apply. Hong Kong were first to

record their understanding of the agreement, which they did

ago(in

ibismar

home than

та

year ago in a despatch clearly reflecting the Governor's hard about the Arstment as a whole)

feelings, and which also placed on record that Hong Kong saw no

reason to alter the growth factors in the Heads of Agreement.

It should be noted also that the Board of Trade agreed to provide

mid-1969 import statistics in the light of which the modifications

eur accepted by Hong Kong might be reviewed in 1970, They have not

done so. Hong Kong argue that they could not tell whether the

situation by mid-1969 would justify a proposal that growth should

5.

or more as provided in the Heads of Agreement.

It was three months before a reply was sent to the Governor's

contamed H.M.G'S despatch. ho live

statement about growth, to the effect that there could be no ques-

It was argued.

In this reply the Beard of Trade made their first formal

tion of allowing a rate above 3%. They said then, and continue to

Partingal and India had not been

say now, that because they had not previously allowed any growth

for Portugal, and did not subsequently allow any growth for India,

bathing

^

it was unthinkable that they should agree to the 6% Hong Kong showed be allowed to claim a possible 6% growth under the Agreement.

demanded (as of right).

(or Portuguese) 6. It is, however, difficult to accept that, should the Indians

ん become aware of any growth provision, be it 3% or 6%, any protes-

tations would not have the same substance and present the same

The in

difficulties.

Nor does there seem ang good reason to think that that me The argument put forward by BOT that 6% growth

Findwas would tilt the balance against India is as valid, or invalid,-

N.P. b. whatever the level allowed. But such considerations must be set

[ Take in slips] against the more positive undertaking in the Heads of Agreement.

I In the absence of any subsequent mutual agreement are we not

bound to adhere to the growth rate fixed in the Heads of

Agreement? There were no substantive discussions about growth,

only the untidy sequence of events described above which allows

both parties to believe that their interpretation is the correct

fall back on In the absence of any mutual agreement, are we not bound to adhere to The Growth rate free

requisconsin. The Agreement?

17.

one.