asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total weight of cotton yarn exported to Germany in the month ending 31st July, 1922; and what was the corresponding figure for the month ending 31st October?

The quantities of cotton yarn of United Kingdom manufacture registered during July and October, 1922, respectively, as exported from this country, consigned to Germany, are shown in the published monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts to have been as follows:

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures showing the quantities and values of the exports from the United Kingdom of cotton piece goods and yarn, distinguishing between grey and white unbleached and bleached, bleached and dyed, and manufactures wholly or partly of dyed yarn, for the two periods of 10 months ending 31st October, 1920 and 1922?

Detailed particulars respecting the exports of cotton yarn, piece goods, etc., of the United Kingdom manufacture during the periods specified in the question are shown on pages 122 to 150 of the monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts for October, and I am sending to the hon. Member a marked copy of Part III of these accounts in which these pages are included.

Is there not a considerable reduction in the export of dyed yarns, whereas there is a considerable increase in the export of grey yarns, and does not the same thing apply to cotton piece goods; and will the President of the Board of Trade take stepe to repeal the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, and remove all restrictions on the import of dyes?

There will be an opportunity of discussing that matter this afternoon.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish the official information in his possession purporting to show the benefits of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the information on which he bases his statement that no loss of employment has been caused by that Act?

I propose to deal fully with this matter in the course of the Debate later to-day on an Amendment to the Address.

Does the right hon. Gentleman now say that, when he made the statement that no one had been thrown out of work through this Act, he was making a partisan statement, not based on official information?

No, Sir. I was making what I still believe to be an accurate statement.

Was it based on official information; and, if so, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us the official information?

I understand the object of the Debate which is to follow this afternoon is in order to enable the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other Members of the House to receive that information.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the minimum degree of purity of imported sodium hyposulphite above which the chemical is liable, to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sodium hyposulphite is dutiable when it ie of photographic quality, or of still higher quality. Photographic quality hyposul- phite is a well-known trade quality, but there is no fixed quantitative standard to which it must conform, and any hyposulphite which would be good delivery against an order for sodium hyposulphite, "photographic quality," is dutiable.

Is it the case then that the importer cannot know in advance whether he is liable to the duty and the imposition of the duty depends on the analysis?

Everybody engaged in the trade knows perfectly well what this trade term means.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that 80 drums of permanganate of potash, which arrived at the Salford Docks, Manchester, ex steamship "Stad Utrecht," on the 2nd October, 1922, are still held by the Customs pending decision as to liability under the above Act; that repeated requests have been made to the Customs for this matter to be decided, but no reply of a satisfactory nature can be obtained; whether he is aware that the heavy delay in these cases hampers or prevents trade; and will he endeavour to make arrangements at the Customs to have this Act, until it is repealed, carried out in a businesslike manner?

I am informed that the consignment of permanganate of potash referred to in the question was declared on importation to be of commercial quality, and, as such, free of duty. As there was reason to doubt the accuracy of the declaration, tests of representative samples were taken and, as a result, the goods were found to be of "R" quality and liable to Key Industry Duty. Instructions have now been given as to the conditions under which release of the consignment may be obtained.

Is it not possible to arrange that these long delays should be avoided?

Quite easily. It depends on the quality of the goods.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have the analysis laid upon the Table?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that under the item R potassium permanganate, scheduled in the list of articles liable to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, the Customs are levying the duty on importations of potassium permanganate of commercial quality that is for use for industrial purposes and, in view of the fact that the R quality is only meant to refer to the pure quality, will he instruct the Customs accordingly?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Duty is not charged by the Customs on permanganate of potash unless of R quality. I may remind the hon. Member that if a claim for duty on a specific consignment is disputed on the ground that the goods are not of dutiable quality, it is open to the importer to apply to have the matter referred to a referee under Section 11 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act.

What does this letter "R" stand for—an English word?

I have nothing to do with the Act now.

Has the cost of the reference to which the right hon. Gentleman refers to be borne by the trader who is making the complaint?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, though on the 6th of April last aluminium sulphocyanide, barium sulphocyanide, and copper sulphocyanide were stated to be deleted from the list of articles scheduled as liable to duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, potassium sulphocyanide and sodium sulphocyanide are still retained in the list of scheduled products; and, if so, can he say for what reason the latter two have not been removed from the list and from liability to duty on importation?

The items aluminium sulphocyanide, barium sulphocyanide and copper sulphocyanide were removed from the lists because certain observations made by the referee in his decision in the cream of tartar case indicated that he would probably regard the three chemicals in question as heavy chemicals. These observations do not apply to potassium sulphocyanide and sodium sulphocyanide, and accordingly the lists were not amended in respect of these two substances.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many allegations of dumping have been received by his Department in support of applications for Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; how many of these have been investigated by Committees appointed under the Act; and what has been the result of these investigations?

About 140 trades or branches of trades have communicated with the Board since the coming into force of Part II of the Act in August, 1921, but the majority of these have not progressed beyond the stage of inquiry relating to the formulation of complaints. Fifteen complaints have been referred to Committees for inquiry, and of these five have been the subject of Orders made by the Board of Trade under Part II of the Act; eight have been adversely reported upon by the Committees; and in the two remaining cases the Reports of the Committees have been received and are under consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long they have been under consideration? Would two months be about the period?

No, I do not think so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that there has been a General Election and that it was rather difficult, with a change of Government, to avoid some sort of interregnum, but there was no avoidable delay.

Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not answer the question on the Paper as to how many of these complaints have been raised on the ground of dumping? That is the question.

I think, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that I have dealt with that completely, but, speaking from memory, I think two cases of dumping in the ordinary sense were referred to I Committees.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that justifies this Act?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will doubtless have a chance of expressing his opinion on that, but he knows perfectly well that the Act deals with a great many other things.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the oil production of Great Britain, Trinidad, Egypt and Mexico, and cost per ton of production in each case, for the year 1921?

Exact information with regard to the production in Great Britain in 1921 is not available, but it is computed that the total production of crude petroleum was approximately 140,000 tons. The quantity produced in Trinidad was 334,000 tons, in Egypt 190,000 tons, and in Mexico 38,000,000 tons. I regret that I am unable to state the cost of production.