§ 78. Mr. KILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the decisions of the Referee that a number of chemicals and other articles have been improperly placed in the lists of dutiable articles under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, he will take steps to reimburse the complainants the costs to which they have been subjected in 408 establishing the fact that the responsible officers of the Board of Trade acted improperly in placing such articles on the list?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe machinery set up by the Act for testing the correctness of the lists issued by the Board of Trade was specially designed with the view of eliminating unnecessary expense, and the rules of procedure laid down by the Referee were framed with a similar view. Complainants, who incurred heavy expenses, did so on their own initiative, and I am therefore not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
§ Mr. KILEYBut does the Board of Trade realise that only those cases where expert legal assistance was forthcoming have been rescinded, while other cases where legal and expert assistance had not been sought have been retained?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONThat is fully realised, but that does not affect the answer that I gave, that the process of adjudication was designed so as to inflict the minimum of expense on applicants, and the Board of Trade have themselves consistently throughout followed that rule, for instance, by the employment only of junior counsel, instead of senior.
§ Mr. KILEYBut as the Board of Trade improperly put them on this list, why should the trader be penalised for the mistakes that the Board of Trade have made?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONThere is a subsequent question dealing with that point.