HC Deb 08 May 1922 vol 153 cc1766-7
18. Dr. MURRAY

asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has appointed a Committee to consider the imposing of an additional 33⅓ per cent. upon optical and scientific instruments imported from Germany, seeing that these articles are already subjected to a duty of 33⅓ per cent, under the key section of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and some, such as magnetos and magneto parts, are subject to a still further 33⅓ under the McKenna import duties in addition to 26 per cent. Reparations Act Duty; and whether, seeing that all these duties have to be collected individually, he is prepared to consider the advisability of prohibiting the import of these articles altogether rather than continue the present system?

Mr. BALDWIN

The reason for the appointment of the Committee was that it appeared to the Board of Trade that a primâ facie case was made out that the conditions prescribed in Section 2 (1) (b) of the Act were fulfilled in regard to optical and scientific instruments. Magnetos and magneto parts are not included in the reference to the Committee, and the hon. Member is also under a misapprehension as to the relations between key industry duty and other Customs duties, as he will see from Section 1 (2) of the Act. The Reparations levy is not a Customs duty. Further, it is not the case that the duties referred to are collected separately, and the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Dr. MURRAY

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Annual Report of the Medical Research Committee of the Privy Council, signed by the present Earl of Balfour, it is stated that their work has been greatly hampered by the increased price of scientific instruments?

Captain W. BENN

Is it a fact that in some instances these articles are liable to a duty of 66⅔ per cent.?

Mr. BALDWIN

It is conceivable, in my opinion.

Forward to