§ 7 and 8. Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in the case of disputes arising under Clause 1 (4) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act as to whether dutiable ingredients have or have not lost their identity in compound articles, his Department is taking the view that the Clause is not explicit as to the referee appointed by the Lord Chancellor being the proper authority to whom such disputes should be referred; and whether he is prepared to explain to the House the grounds on which the attitude is being adopted by his Department, seeing that traders whose interests are concerned with the interpretation of the Clause can at present get no satisfaction from the Department as to the course of procedure they should adopt to secure immediate arbitration; 374 (2) whether he received on the 6th November a letter sent the previous day by the fancy goods and china and glassware joint vigilance committee of the London Chamber of Commerce, complaining as to the term lamp-blown ware in the key industries schedule being applied to various kinds of cheap fancy goods; whether the Department still maintain that it is not in a position to answer the letter, but has its contents under consideration; whether he is prepared to admit that the application of the term lamp-blown ware to such goods as dolls' eyes, Christmas tree ornaments, artificial grapes used for millinery, etc., involves lifting it entirely out of its context in the key industries schedule, seeing that it appears there entirely surrounded by commodities of a scientific character; whether the objection made by the vigilance committee to him derives strong support from the promises made by Ministers in Parliament in regard to lamp-blown ware when the House adopted the Ways and Means Resolutions last May; and whether, seeing that His Majesty's Customs are admittedly holding up these fancy goods for duty under the advice of the industries and manufactures department of the Board of Trade, to whom they refer complainants, the Board is prepared forthwith to lay the case, as desired by the vigilance committee, before the Lord Chancellor's referee?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSONThe hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No list of articles to be taken as comprised within the general heading of lamp-blown ware has been issued by the Board of Trade. Complaints of the nature of those to which the hon. Member refers accordingly appear to come under Section 11 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and it is open to complainants to approach the Customs with a view to their complaints being referred to a referee to be appointed in accordance with that Section. The vigilance committee of the London Chamber of Commerce have been so informed by the Board. I am not aware of any complaint in this particular connection as to loss of identity, and the question as to the interpretation of Section 1 (4) of the Act does not arise.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAre we to understand from that reply that 375 dolls' eyes were kept out because they were a key industry and not because there was a collapsed exchange?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONNo, Sir. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend should understand that.