HC Deb 31 July 1922 vol 157 cc973-4
14. Mr. FOOT

asked the President of the Board of Trade why a piece of glassware dating from the period of the Crimean war is not exempted from duty by the Order he proposes to make under Part II. of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, whereas a piece dating from the period of the Napoleonic wars is so exempt; and what present unemployment could be caused in this country by the admission of the former article free of duty?


The exemption of articles more than 100 years old was inserted in the Draft Order, to meet the case of genuine antiques, and the term was suggested by the British Antique Dealers' Association. Any precise period taken for the purposes of such a definition must clearly be somewhat arbitrary.

15. Mr. FOOT

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Clause 7 of the Domestic Glassware Committee's Report under the Safeguarding of Industries Act does not specify tumblers which are only pressed; and why blown tumblers, answering to the exact description given by the Committee in the Clause referred to, are not exempted from duty in the Draft Order equally with those that are pressed?


I am aware of the wording of the Committee's Report, which is as stated by the hon. Member. It is not intended to charge a duty on Belgian tumblers, and the terms of the proposed order are intended to preclude this type of article.


Can the hon. Gentleman say what is a Belgian tumbler? There seems to be a difference of opinion abort it.


It is a well-known trade description. I should be glad to give it to my hon. Friend.


Does the Board of Trade regard itself as being bound by the findings of the Committee or does it go into those matters further?


I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has taken some interest in this matter, would have appreciated the great care taken by the Board of Trade.