Mr haird
Then cutie.
Mr. Stewart (Wintech)
cc Mr. Hughoɔ (S3C)
Mr. Vintez (Mintcoh) Mr. Caroy (intoch) Mr. Sanders (CRE2) M. Dunnott (CRM) Mr. Heath (FCO) Mr. Murray (FCO) Mr. McEnery (liintoca) Mr. Slatex (intech) Miss Welch (Mintoch)
MON-COTTON TEXTILES
Thank you for your ninuto of April 24.
As you are On
the point of leaving your procont job, I was at first inclined to let you have the lost word but, on reflection, I do not think I ought to allow this.
2. I am still at a 2000 to understand your anathema for "roll in" and I do not find your para.2 at all convincing. If we, or anybody elco, have coen fit to impose a quota limit on imports of bicusco fron Hong Kong at, say 20,000 garmento, we are surely making a judgment that we can stand imports of 20,000 but not 21,000 or any higher figure. If the actual level of laports is 19,000 or lens, we are getting a bonus. Or to put it another way, the quota limitation is no longer necessary in that particular year.
3. Let us now sumpoco that we have a quota limit for 10,000 blouses made fren naasado fibreo. Surely in a situation where demand is changing 1% do not unreasonable for Hong Kong to ask that any shortfall in their quota for cotton blouses can be made good by additional importo of mannade fibre blouses.
4.
Given that the dementie industry is interested in producing blousca irrespective of the fibre of which they are made, I cannot Boe that there is any major point of principle hero. Naturally the domestic industry would prefer the two quotas to be quite separato. But from the point of view of equity I can see no great problema. Presumably the original limitation on cotton blouses was imposed because there was injury to the domestic industry in those garments and the new restriction on manmade fibre blouses has the como justification. Both limitations were adjudged necessary to limit the injury and even if both quotas were fully taken up the objective would have beon achieved.
5. I can see, as I said before, that a possible objection to roll-in 1s that it might tend to perpetuate controls over cotton blouses (in this hypotheticnl case) whore the natural course of events would have been to make tho limitation on cotton blouses superfluous. But my starting assumption was that, like it or not, come countries would insist on imposing celective restraints on some types of non-cotten garmento. Once you accept this assumption I cannot aco why you are making such a song and dance about roll-in.
6.
The point made in your n ra.3 is quite a different cno. You are simply caying that the categorisation of restraints on cotton items may be sufficiently broad to permit injury on a particular type of cotton goods within on individual category. Your account of the action taken on wide shooting and sheets is tendcntious. Your cum cubmission to Ministers at the time admitted that the case for taking action was political (1.8. to keep industry quiet) rather than economic and it is perfectly proper for me to cay after the event, as I do, that our action in forcing on Hong Kong a reduction in the volume of
wide/
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.