asker the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the announcements made by his Department on the 14th September and 14th December, 1921, and 13th February,

With the permission of the hon. Member I will have figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the particulars desired.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So far as it is possible to judge, it is unlikely that any further additions to the panel will be necessary for the present. With regard to the third part of the question, I would point out that the great majority of the panel already consists of persons of commercial or industrial experience. As regards the last part, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 8th May.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been brought to his notice that in the year 1921 the total value of the imports of fabric gloves into Great Britain from all countries only amounted to £570,000, whereas the exports of cotton yarns to Germany alone, excluding finished threads, amounted to £3,715,756; and whether these figures were before the Glove Committee when it made its Report in January upon the question of applying Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to the protection of the fabric glove industry?

As regards the total value of the imports of fabric gloves in 1921, I would refer to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on the 8th May. The exports of cotton yarns to Germany were as stated in the question, and these figures, together with those relating to imports of fabric gloves, were before the Committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet corapleted his consideration of theprimâ facie case put forward by the British silk manufacturers for the application of the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to their industry; and, if so, whether he can state the action he proposes to take?

Aprimâ facie case for reference to a Committee was not made out by the applicants, but they have since furnished certain further information which is being considered.

When will the decision be given?

As soon as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the date when he received notice of objection to the imposing of a duty upon the importation of synthetic camphor; when the same was submitted to the referee; when a decision is likely to be arrived at; and if he is aware that these prolonged delays entail serious inconvenience to industry?

The formal notice of objection was served by the complainants on 28th December, The necessary statements by both sides were completed by 28th March and the hearing was opened on 1st April. Further proceedings were delayed by the illness of the referee until 29th April, when the second and final hearing took place. I have no doubt the decision will be given as soon as possible. I fully appreciate the desirability of avoiding delay, and there has been no avoidable delay by the Board of Trade in this case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this matter has already taken six months, and cannot he do something to prevent so much time being occupied with a single objection?

I regret as much as my hon. Friend the amount of time occupied, but my answer is that in this case it has been inevitable.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that within the last fortnight a City firm imported 30 parcels of millinery sprays which were detained by the Post Office for assessment of key industries duty on account of the fact that they contained small parts of lamp-blown glass, the total duty levied in the first place being 3s. 1d., which charge was subsequently amended to 11d.; whether he is aware that the Post Office charges for opening these goods in order to make the assessment of lid. amounted to 15s., that is to say, more than 15 times the amount of the duty held to be leviable under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether, in view of the hardship caused to manufacturers in this country who import these goods for manipulation in their own workshops, he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Whitechapel on 11th May, and to my subsequent statement in debate on the Board of Trade Vote. I am in communication with the Postmaster-General in the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend not see the stupidity of 15s. being spent in order to collect a tax of 11d., and cannot he make some other efficient arrangement so that this sum of money will not be spent in the collection of so small a tax?

That is exactly the point on which I am communicating with the Postmaster-General. The first I heard of the matter was when my attention was drawn to it by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Whitechapel.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the complaint which has been referred to a committee of inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act (Part II), regarding snap fasteners, includes all types of snap fasteners such as are used for motor-car covers?

The complaint is not limited to any particular variety of snap fasteners, but it will, of course, be open to the committee in their findings to distinguish between different varieties if such a course appears to them desirable.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantities of snap fasteners imported into this country from Japan and from America for the years 1913 and 1921, respectively?

I regret that the desired particulars are not available.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he was aware, before setting up the Committee to inquire into whether serious unemployment was being created in the press-button and stud industry in Great Britain owing to the importation from Germany, that the total value of imports of these articles from Germany during the six months ending 31st March, 1922, was £2,174; and, in view of the inconvenience and disturbance caused to the other manufacurers using these goods in having to leave their businesses and prepare rebutting evidence involving expenditure of time and money, can he say, in the event of the users being able to show that the importation of these goods from Germany is not creating serious unemployment now or in the immediate future, he is in a position to provide for the reimbursing of the expenses incurred in opposing the application?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have no power to provide for the reimbursement suggested.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the 1,050,000 lenses and prisms imported into this country during the past six months chiefly consisted of toy articles such as kaleidoscopes, viewscopes, magic lanterns, magnifying glasses and similar articles; that the average complete value of the lenses and instruments was 6¾d.; and that these are classified as optical and scientific instruments upon which the Key Industry Duty of 33⅓ per cent, is levied; if he can say whether these articles are included in the reference to the Committee which is appointed by him to consider the placing of a further 33⅓ per cent. duty under the depreciated currency provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act on the ground that the importation of these toys is causing serious unemployment in this country: and is he aware that another Committee recently reported that the importation of such toys is not causing serious unemployment?

The total number of lenses, prisms, etc., registered as imported during the six months October to March was about 2,000,000. These, no doubt, included a considerable number of lenses imported with complete instruments, but I am unable to confirm the figure mentioned in the question. The average value of about 6½d. includes only the lenses, prisms, etc., not the instruments of which they formed part. Some of the articles mentioned in the question are included under the headings of optical elements or instruments in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and are therefore liable to key industry duty. So far as such articles come within the scope of the optical or scientific instrument industry, they come within the terms of reference to the Committee referred to in the third part of the question, but so far as they concern the toy-making industry they have already been dealt with by the Toys Committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that sodium pyrophosphate (cream of tartar substitute) is still retained in the key list under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, although the recent decisions of the referee on points of principle in connection with the cream of tartar appeal definitely ruled that its inclusion was improper; if he will take steps to have this product, with some hundreds of others that are equally affected, removed from the key list without delay;

(2) if he is aware that the referee's decisions on points of principle already given in connection with appeals against the inclusion of certain products in the key list under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, have only been applied to products against which formal notice of appeal had been lodged by their deletion from the key list, and that a number of other products against which formal notice of appeal had not been lodged, but which are equally affected by the referee's rulings, are still retained in the key list; and whether he will order the immediate removal from the list of all such products?

For the purpose of reducing the number of cases to be heard by the referee, I have examined the views he has expressed in awards already given in their bearing on the complaints not yet heard. As a result, certain amendments of the lists issued under Section 1 (5) of the Act have been made. Sodium pyrophosphate has not been the subject of any formal complaint within the terms of Section 1 (5), and was accordingly outside the scope of my review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is possible or easy to make a decision in regard to Part I of the Act when he is unable to make any decision in regard to Part II?

Parts I and II are entirely different.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to take action with a view of exempting from the operation of the Safeguarding of Industries Act articles of trifling value when they are component parts, similar to those of an electric light plant value £100, on which the amount of duty realisable on the dutiable part is 4s., seeing that the collection of such amounts usually entails expenditure of many times that of the duty apart from the delay and labour?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh on 13th February last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on an electric lighting plant which costs £100 the sum collected is 4s., and does he not think it desirable to correct that?

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the reference I have given, I think he will be satisfied.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of exports from the United Kingdom to Germany for the quarter ending 31st March; and can he also give the total value of imports from Germany to the United Kingdom for the same period?

The total values of the exports from the United Kingdom, consigned to Germany, and of the imports into the United Kingdom, consigned from Germany, registered during the quarter ended 31st March, 1922, are shown in the published British Official Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation for April, and are as follows:

	£
Exports (of produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom)	5,410,053
Exports (of foreign and colonial merchandise)	4,708,029
Imports	5,475,462

asked the Prime Minister whether the date of the next meeting of the assembly of the League of Nations has been fixed; if so, what is the date; whether the question of the admission of Germany and Russia to the League is to be raised; and who are to be the British representatives at the assembly?

The next session of the assembly of the League of Nations will commence on the 4th September. The question of the admission of Germany and Russia to the League does not appear on the first agenda circulated by the Secretary-General. The British representatives have not yet been nominated.

Is it possible for our Government to propose items for the agenda; and, if the question of the admission of these two countries, which have taken part in Genoa, is left out of the agenda, will the Government consider proposing it for discussion?

I must have notice of that.

Does the omission of this question from the agenda prevent it coming up for discussion by the League?

My information is that it has not appeared on the first agenda circulated. I assume from that that there is still an opportunity of putting on items on the agenda; I think there is.

Is the attitude of the Government friendly to the admission of these two countries, and, if so, would they make it known?

I cannot answer a question of that kind, and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will feel that himself. I do not think they stand quite in the same category.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Council of the League of Nations has just assembled; and, if so, what is the agenda for the meeting?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The agenda is of considerable length, and perhaps the hon. Member will refer to the copy which has been placed in the Library of the House.