TNAG-0521-FCO40-616-Visit-of-Lord-Goronwy-Roberts--Parliamentary-Under-Secretary-1975 — Page 96

dd not take a firm line at that stage but tended to the Trade

view on the grounds of not wanting to damage relations with the

supplying countries concerned, in particular Hong Kong. But there

was clearly a need for a compromise between the positions adopted

by Mr Benn and Mr Shore, without giving way on important points of

principle.

.7.

Mr Benn's letter of 13 December sought a compromise by suggest-

ing a more selective approach on individual knitwear items, i.e.

refusing to apply restraints on items where there is no current

threat of disruption at all but going along with Community-wide

restraints where there was a case of sorts. At the same time

Mr Benn would propose to seek better than average Community growth

rates and would be prepared to invoke the flexibility provisions of

the burden sharing formula in order unilaterally to admit higher

imports into the UK if the market situation justified it.

8. While Mr Shore, in his letter of 23 December, seeks clarifica-

tion regarding certain points of detail, he agrees, albeit with much

reluctance, with the general line proposed by Mr Benn. I think that

FCO Ministers should agree likewise. The burden sharing argument is

important: it would be a pity if we were to miss the bus and not be

able to apply the burden sharing formula on knitwear if we bad to

introduce restraints later on in 1975. The increasing problems

facing the UK textile industry, though not a specific FCO responsi-

bility, must also be taken into account. The interests of our own

suppliers ought not in practice to be too seriously affected provided

that:-

(a) the approach is genuinely selective;

(b)

generous, growth rates can be secured;

(o) the UK is prepared, as Mr Benn proposes, to admit higher

imports from these countries if the market situation