18. Dr. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has personally read the judgment given by the official referee in regard to the cream of tartar, tartaric acid, and citric acid complaints under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether he is aware that this case occupied nine hearings, involving the expenditure of many thousands of pounds, part of which will fall upon the taxpayers of the country; whether the santonine case, which was heard last December, was also a very protracted one; and whether he will take steps whereby the representatives of the chief interested parties should be called together in conference, with a view to eliminating the necessity for further costly proceedings which, apart from the expenditure of time and money, operate very injuriously upon the business of the country.
§ Mr. BALDWINI am aware of the judgment in the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend, and that the hearing was a protracted one. The santonine case occupied only two hearings. Steps are being taken to shorten the proceedings in future cases, and I may add that the last five cases which have been dealt with by the referee occupied together only six short hearings. As regards the last part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Whitechapel on the 23rd March.
19. Dr. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the date when he received the complaint that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. was being improperly levied on cream of tartar, tartaric acid, and citric acid; the date when the complaint was handed to the referee to be dealt with; is he aware that the referee has now decided that this duty should not have been levied; what amount has been collected by the Customs authorities on these commodities; and is he prepared to take any action to secure the refunding of such amount?
§ Mr. BALDWINA large number of formal notices of complaint under Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act were received in respect of the commodities mentioned. A joint case was submitted on behalf of a number of complainants on the 5th December; 920 amended statements were subsequently submitted and placed before the referee, who called for further particulars, which were furnished on the 19th January. The decision of the referee was signed on the 25th March and the commodities mentioned were withdrawn from the dutiable list as from that date. The amount of the duties collected is £5,718. As regards the last part of the question, I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the provision of Section 1 (5) of the Act, which is to the effect that any decision of the referee shall be without prejudice to anything previously done.
Dr. MURRAYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that these delayed proceedings are causing uncertainty in trade and crippling industry? Why should not Genoa begin at home?
§ Mr. KILEYDoes the Treasury appreciate the position, that there are traders who have paid this duty, whereas their competitors next month will be able to sell their goods 33⅓ per cent. cheaper?