asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board, in laying an Order imposing a duty on fabric gloves, took into account the interests of spinners of yarn; whether any representations were made on their behalf; and, if so, to what effect?

The answer to the brat part of the question is in the affirmative. Representations were made on behalf of the spinners of fine cotton yarns in this country, the general contention being that the imposition of a duty on fabric gloves would be adverse to their interests, since it would tend to restrict the exports of yarn to Germany.

To whom were these representations made? Who decided on their merits?

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Did the hon. Gentleman not say that they could not take into account any of the evidence given before the Committee?

Was not this matter taken out of the hands of the Committee, and settled by the Board of Trade?

Is it not a fact that no harm whatever will be done in this case?

This question will be debated in a few days.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would be prepared to bring up to date the memorandum drawn up by the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade on German currency; and, if so, can he state when copies will be available?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the table given on page 10 of the Fabric Glove Committee's Report can be amplified by a supplementary table showing the figures down to a more recent date than December last, seeing that such supplementary figures are already in possession of the Department, showing a different ratio between the internal purchasing power of the mark and the external purchasing power of the mark; and whether he can inform the House why the Fabric Glove Committee's Report, which is the earliest of the Safeguarding of Industries Acts, Part II Reports, is in the appendix rather than the latest Report at the date of which more recent figures could have been supplied?

I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT additional figures, bringing the table referred to up to date as far as the information is available. With regard to the last part of Question 22, the Reports of the Committees are printed in the form in which they were received by the Board of Trade, and the Fabric Gloves Committee was the only one which appended the table in question to its Report.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Committee set up to inquire as to the importation of fabric gloves decided to disregard the evidence of the Bolton spinners on the ground that its terms of reference did not allow of consideration being given to any effect which a protective order might have upon employment in industries other than those handling the finished article against which the order was made; and whether he will consider an amendment of the Act in order to admit consideration of evidence so important to the issue?

I am aware that although the Committee took certain evidence of the kind to which the hon. Member refers, they ultimately decided to make no report upon it for the reason given. The purpose of the appointment of a Committee under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act is to elicit specific facts as to the position of the industry to which the complaint relates, and to arrive at some conclusion as to the direct effect of the imposition of a duty. The consideration of indirect effects would involve the Committee in an indefinite inquiry, and is a matter rather for the Board of Trade and this House, if and when a draft order is laid before it, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to propose any Amendment of the Act of the kind suggested.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why the draft Order under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act applies only in respect of domestic illuminating and mounting glassware to articles imported from Germany, in view of the fact that the Committee inquired into and recommended a duty upon similar articles imported from Czecho-Slovakia?

This is one of the matters with which my right hon. Friend will deal when the Order comes before the House.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total quantities and values of glassware imported from Germany into this country for the year ending 31st March, 1922, and on which it is now proposed to impose a duty of 33⅓ per cent.?

The answer involves a statement of figures, which, with the hon. Member's permission, I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had an opportunity of considering the decision of the referee, given on 12th June, regarding the complaint of Messrs. Lang and Sons as to the referee's definition of scientific glassware; and, if so, whether it is intended to take action thereon?

The learned referee has decided that the articles to which the complaint relates are properly included in the list issued by the Board of Trade. The question whether any particular imported goods do or do not fall within any of the descriptions is a matter for the determination of His Majesty's Customs.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the very grave unemployment in the Yorkshire glass trade at Mexborough and elsewhere, he can expedite the completion of the inquiry into the importation of glass bottles and take the requisite action thereon if a case is proved?

I am informed that the Committee have completed the hearing of evidence, and I have no doubt that they will prepare their Report as expeditiously as possible.

Is the hon. Baronet aware that, if any rise in the price of glass bottles takes place, the mineral water trade of this country will be entirely ruined?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether hi special attention has been called to Section r of the Report of the Domestic Illuminating and Mounting Glassware Committee under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether the draft Order laid upon the Table of the House includes the tumblers to which that Section refers; and, if so, whether he can offer the House any statistics or other information as to the grounds on which he has made the Order in respect of tumblers in the face of the Committee's recommendation?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the second part is in the negative; and the third part consequently does not arise.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Section 5 of the Domestic, Illuminating, and Mounting Glassware Committee's Report under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, expressly states their opinion that glassware, so far as it may be the subject of an Order in consequence of this Report, should be expressly defined as not including pressed glass, he will state why note (a) to the Schedule contained in the draft Order laid upon the Table of the House limits the exclusion to any article of glassware which is only pressed; and whether he can state why this form of words is used in place of the words recommended by the Committee?

I am advised that certain types of glassware which are made of pressed glass undergo other processes and are not ordinarily included within the term "pressed glass," and the formula employed in the draft Order has consequently been adopted for the sake of greater clearness.

Is it understood that pressed glass is exempted from the Order, although, if it is coloured in any way, it is dutiable?

I can only refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the Order.

Has the Board of Trade power to include an article not recommended by the Committee for duty?

I shall require notice of that question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, Sub-section 2, the Committee had power to inquire into the effect of any proposed order on industries using the goods on which a duty was to be imposed; and whether evidence was, in fact, tendered or invited from workshops, restaurants and other establishments using for the purposes of their business the articles on which a- duty is to be laid?

The terms of reference to Committees appointed under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act have, in accordance with Section 2 (3) of the Act, in all cases included a direction that the Committee should report on the effect which the imposition of a duty would exert on employment in any industry using goods of the description in question as material. As regards the goods covered by the draft Order, the Reports of the Committees indicate that no evidence was offered to lead them to conclude that the imposition of a duty on imports from Germany would affect employment in other industries.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that no announcement has yet been made as to the findings of the Bronze Powders Committee set up under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and of the fact that the Order laid upon the Table of the House contains no mention of bronze powders, he will say whether no Order will be made applying the Act to bronze powders imported from Germany?

In view of the nature of the Report of the Committee, which will be presented to Parliament and published in the course of the next few days, it is not proposed to make an Order applying to imported bronze powders.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to Section 14 of the Aluminium Hollow-ware Committee's Report under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and to the fact that the recommendation contained therein was repeated in the same Committee's Report respecting wrought enamelled hollowware; and whether he can give the reason why, in spite of this recommendation emphasised by repetition, the draft Order proposes to place an import duty on both types of hollow-ware for the maximum period of time allowed under Section 9 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

This is a matter with which my right hon. Friend will deal when moving the Resolution to approve the draft Order.

asked the President of the Board of Trade why, when an importer of certain powders in a toy photographic outfit applied to his Department to know if duty was payable, his Department refused the information, although a sample was submitted; and can he state why the same was not submitted to his expert for his decision seeing that the importer had no means of ascertaining, as the supplier refused to disclose the composition of the mixture in question?

The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The analysis of samples of goods proposed to be imported is no part of the duties of the Board of Trade; they are, however, always ready to give information as to the liability to duty of goods the composition of which is stated. In this case the applicant furnished no information on the subject, but it is, of course, open to him to employ an independent commercial analyst.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether naphthalene when imported in the shape of flakes is free of duty, but when imported in ball shape duty must be paid; and whether he can further state what action can be taken by the importer to obtain a refund of the sum he is compelled to deposit before delivery of naphthalene in ball form can be obtained, seeing that His Majesty's Customs refuse to return the same?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 20th June, and as regards the second part, I must direct his attention to Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act.

A few days ago I was told in answer to a question that this article was not dutiable, and how does the hon. Baronet harmonise that reply with his answer to-day?

It harmonises perfectly.

Will the hon. Baronet say whether it is dutiable or not? I have had two replies, one saying "Yes," and the other "No."

I said it was not.

But the Government are still levying the duty.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the result of his investigation into the statement made by a large exporting house of French optical goods that their turnover in these goods had been seriously affected by a duty of 33⅓ per cent. imposed upon French optical goods, which he formerly exported to Australia and other British Dominions, which trade was now being done from France direct instead of viâ London as hitherto; and can he state the result of his investigation into the statement of another manufacturer that his trade with the United States and Canada had been affected owing to his inability to obtain drawback on opera glasses which he fitted into bags?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to him on the 19th June, to which I have at present nothing to add.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his atten- tion has been called to the statement made by Major A. G. Church, D.S.O., general secretary of the National Union of Scientific Workers, before the Optical and Scientific Committee under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, to the effect that the operation of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the consequent difficulties placed in the way of an adequate supply of glass vessels and instruments to hospitals and medical schools have greatly retarded scientific research; whether he is aware that in some cases research in certain branches has been abandoned owing to the vastly increased cost; and what steps he proposes to take in order to obviate this threatened arrest of medical and scientific progress?

I have seen the statement in question, which appears to be based on the assumption that all difficulties of the kinds mentioned are due to the operation of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and takes no account of the change in the cost of all commodities, and also in industrial conditions in Germany which have resulted in abnormal delay in delivery and a lower standard of quality than prevailed pre-War. I am satisfied that British manufacturers are making every effort to improve the quality and reduce the cost of their products, and sympathetic cooperation with them on the part of men of science will expedite that process and be to the advantage of all concerned.

Are the research workers to be content to wait until these materials and instruments are satisfactorily produced in this country?

I have already said in my answer that I do not think it is fair to attribute the whole of these results to the operation of the Act.