§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had yet replied to the complaint of the Maidstone Town Council made under Section 27 of The Port of London Act, 1908; and, if not, when he will be in a position to reply?
Mr. BUXTONA reply has been sent to the Maidstone Town Council, and I have directed that a copy should be sent to the noble Lord.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHWhat redress will the Town Council have in the matter?
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is awere that the Port of London Authority have introduced into their tariff differential rates upon sugar according as it is raw or refined, and that it is sought to bring under the latter category yellow crystals and molasses sugars on the ground that these classes go largely into direct consumption; and whether he will draw the attention of the Port of London Authority to the fact that the Customs in this country and other countries have long ago discarded such classification in favour of duties based on polarisation?
Mr. BUXTONThe matter is not one in regard to which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction. But the Port of London Authority inform me that the classification of sugar, and the maximum rates thereon, which are contained in the Port of London 808 (Port Rates on Goods) Order, 1910, were agreed upon between the traders and the Port Authority before the Provisional Order was made by the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONAre the facts as stated in the last part of the question accurate?
Mr. BUXTONIt is rather an intricate question. I think those interested, on the one hand, and the Port Authority on the other, agreed to the arrangement which is now being carried out for the introduction of the Provisional Order and of the Act. In the first place I cannot interfere, and in the second place I do not propose to interfere.