asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the list of articles that have been removed from the schedule prepared by the Board of Trade under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act by reason of the decision of a referee appointed under the Act; and what articles are the subject of orders made under Part II of the same Act?

The items removed by direction of the Referee from the lists issued by the Board of Trade under Section I (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act are camphor, synthetic; citric acid, cream of tartar, R. lactose, santonine, and tartaric acid. A small number of other items have been deleted, and in certain other cases the standard of the dutiable grade has been raised, in accord with what the Board understood to be the general views of the Referee. I am causing a list of these amendments to be sent to the hon. and gallant Member, but I may observe that in respect of certain of the deletions the action of the Board has been challenged by persons intertested. No Order has yet been made under Part II of the Act.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the rise in wages in Germany during the last few months and if he will take this into consideration when considering the making of Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, since experience shows that wages figures embodied by complainants in their applications become quite out of date and misleading by the time the complaints are dealt with by Committees of Inquiry?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that his Statistical Department has prepared a schedule for guidance in connection with the present glass bottles inquiry which shows that the recent disparity between the internal and external value of the mark is rapidly disappearing; whether his attention has been called to the figures given in the "Labour Gazette" for May, 1922, indicating a rise in the cost of living in Germany from 863 per cent. over pre-War in July last to 3,075 per cent. in April of this year; and whether he will take these facts into account before making any Order under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, especially in regard to goods reported on by Committees which completed their inquiries before these changes had developed and before the figures above referred to were available?

My attention has been called to the movements in wages and cost of living in Germany to which reference is made. I must point out, however, that such changes constitute only one of the factors of the problem, and that the sterling value of the mark has depreciated while increases in wages, reckoned in marks, have been in progress. The applicability of the conclusions of the Committees of Inquiry to present circumstances must be determined in the light of available. information regarding changes in all the important factors, and I can assure the hon. Members that very careful attention is given to these matters.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state the policy of the Government in regard to bringing into operation Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act in connection with the fabric glove and other industries which the Board of Trade Committees have recommended should receive the protection of the Act; and whether he will now circulate for the information of Members copies of the Reports of such Committees?

As regards the first part of this question, there are similar questions on the Paper addressed to the Prime Minister, and perhaps my hon. Friend will await the answer to his question at the same time. As regards the second part of the question, the Reports of the Committees will be published in the course of a few days.

Will the evidence also be published?

I must draw the line at expense somewhere.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the decisions arrived at by the Government with regard to the recommendations of the Committees set up under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the decision of the Government with regard to the recommendation of the Committees set up under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

asked the Prime Minister what decisions the Cabinet have come to with regard to the recommendations made to them by the Committees set up under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

I ought to say, before answering these questions, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister habitually answers questions on Monday. He is, however, prevented from being here to-day because he is entertaining the Prime Minister of France.

He was here on Thursday.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister then desired the presence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when he answered the question. The Prime Minister asked me to say he would gladly answer the question on Thursday next, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) would prefer to postpone it until then. I am prepared, however, to give him the answer at once.

I think we should have it now.

It is the intention of the Government to lay before the House at a very early date, for approval in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, an Order under Part II of the Act in respect of certain classes of goods as to which Committees have reported that the conditions laid down in the Act are fulfilled.

How soon will the House have an opportunity of discussing this matter?

I think an occasion must be found before a month elapses. I am ready to find an opportunity as early as possible, but I am in some difficulty about it.

I suppose the Order will be laid as soon as possible?

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade hopes the Order will be laid tomorrow.

Will the Order cover all cases in which the Committee has reported in favour of the Act being applied?

Yes, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not say what are the articles? This has been postponed for a week.

I think the hon. Gentleman had better see the Order when it is presented.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the alleged division in the Cabinet is correctly described in Ministerial Papers, and whether that information is supplied—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

How many of the full-blooded Free Traders of the Government have resigned as a result?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the confusion prevailing at the different ports as to what goods are now covered by the Safeguarding of Industries Act, he will revise the list published by him in September last, seeing that many commodities which are not specified in that list have now been held to be taxable, whilst a number which were in the list have been held by the referee to be improperly placed therein?

I am not aware of any serious confusion of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, but if he will furnish me with specific instances, I shall be glad to consider them in consultation with the Commissioners of Customs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that traders as a whole are in a complete state of confusion as to what they may or may not do under this Act?

No, I am not.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not, aware that there are several thousands of articles on which duties are levied which are not in the list?

I have asked my hon. Friend to give me specific details.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that, since the Safeguarding of Industries Act Committee held its public inquiry regarding imported aluminium and enamelled hollow-ware, market conditions have so far changed that the British articles are on the average cheaper than the German and are commanding a much readier sale and whether he will make a special endeavour to obtain up-to-date information on this point before deciding what action he will take on the Report presented to him by the Committee in question?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If, however, the hon. Member can furnish me with any specific information of the kind indicated I shall be prepared to consider it, but I may point out that in respect of both classes of commodities the registered imports for the month of April were in excess of the monthly average for the first quarter of this year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the reasons justifying the appointment of a Committee to consider the imposing of a duty, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, on glass bottles and containers of 5 inches internal diameter and not on those of 5½ inches, seeing that substantial quantities of bottles of 5½ inches diameter are imported, whereas of those of 5 inches diameter the imports are limited, and that this distinction will operate as an invitation to trades to import the smaller bottles filled?

The terms of reference to the Committee refer generally to glass bottles, but the applicants have themselves limited their complaint in the manner indicated in the question. In regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 29th May to the hon. and gallant Members for the Isle of Ely and for Leith.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement of a firm in the City of London that the export department of their business in cheap grades of French binoculars and opera glasses had been seriously interfered with owing to the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and that their business had decreased during the early months of this year against the same period of 1921 by 60 per cent. to 70 per cent.; whether he is aware of the statement of a fancy leather and bag manufacturer in London that his trade with Canada and the United States in bags containing low-priced ladies' opera glasses had also been seriously interfered with owing to the payment of this duty, and that the procedure for obtaining drawback is unworkable and whether he is prepared to take any action to ensure such businesses being continued until similar competitive goods are manufactured in Great Britain?

I am not satisfied that the decline in the particular business mentioned in the first part of the question can he ascribed to any appreciable extent to the cause suggested. My attention has been called to the complaint mentioned in the second part of the question, and I am in communication with the Commissioners of Customs with a view to ascertaining to what extent it is warranted. In the meantime, the last part of the question does not arise.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries into this subject and into the allegations in the question?

That is so.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that importers who have paid duties on commodities afterwards removed from the list of articles dutiable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act have been refused repayment of the duties direct, but can obtain a refund of the duties as duties paid on re-exports if they ship the articles to, say, Rotterdam and back; and whether, in these circumstances, he will obtain powers, if necessary, to repay such duties at once without compellling traders to incur the unnecessary expense above referred to?

The facts are substantially as stated in the question, except that drawback is only payable if the goods exported have not been used in this country. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has several times stated, he is not prepared to promote legislation to authorise repayment of the duty paid on goods afterwards removed from the list.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received an application to impose a duty on imported picture mouldings; and, if so, in view of the uncertainty that exists in the picture and photograph frame trade, will he make an early announcement on this matter?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Leigh on the 22nd May.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that when an announcement is made in a trade paper about application being made to impose a duty, it creates a certain amount of unrest and concern to that trade? Why cannot he make an announcement when he comes to a decision?

I do not agree with the hon. Member. A great many announcements appear and are taken for what they are worth.

Did the right hon. Gentleman not make a reference to the imposition of duty on a certain article and to the import of that article, showing the results of such an announcement?

Does my right hon. Friend's last answer apply to Government announcements?

I think the remark was of general application.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the statement by the Dean of the Faculty of Science in University College, London, that certain chemicals are unobtainable in this country, and have to be imported from Germany and duty paid on them, he will consider the expediency of seeking powers to exempt such chemicals from the operation of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

My attention has not previously been called to the particular statement mentioned, but I am aware that certain chemicals are not at present manufactured in this country—a fact which was, of course, one of the main reasons for the enactment of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I would remind the hon. Member that the particular aspect. of the matter to which he draws attention was fully discussed during the passage of the Act, and that an Amendment giving the powers which he now suggests did not meet with the approval of the House.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a speech delivered on the 9th June, in the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire, in which it was reported to have been stated that in consequence of the Safeguarding of Industries Act if an English farmer wanted to buy cheap agricultural implements he had to pay through the nose for them or else buy the English product at whatever price the maker might like to charge him; and whether such is the consequence of the Act?

I have seen the speech to which my hon. Friend refers, but, inasmuch as agricultural implements are not included under the Schedule to Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and no Order has been made applying Part II of the Act to that class of goods, the statement which he quotes appears to be entirely unfounded.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House the name of the person who made this speech?

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government refused an Amendment that would