§ 29. Mr. CONNOLLYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the total remission of the duty on tea and the consequent cessation of charges for bond storage and transport thereto, he contemplates any means of passing on the benefit to the consumers of tea?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI understand that consumers have already reaped the full benefit of the repeal of the Tea Duty through lower retail prices.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the reduction in transport charges and bonded store charges is considerable, and is actually computed at as high a figure as 2d. per lb.; and does he intend to take no steps to see that that reduction is passed on to the consumer?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI should certainly not accept, without close examination, the various statements which the hon. Gentleman has just made, but the House 1052 is probably aware that the reduction of duty is 4d. per lb. on foreign tea only, and that it averages rather less than 3½d. per lb. over all tea; that is to say, the average reduction of the duty is ½d. less than the general reduction in retail prices.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYMay I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Treasury have not computed at all the saving due to the reduction in transport and bonded store charges, and intend to take no action to see that the benefit of that reduction is passed on to the consumer?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe Treasury have made the sacrifice involved by the abandonment of the Tea Duty of 4d. per lb., and we must allow that important step to carry its effects steadily forward through every range of the tea industry.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in Greater London alone, 2,500 men are about to be paid off; is not that a serious addition to the amount of unemployed labour; and does the Treasury intend to take no steps to counterbalance it?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI can quite understand the chagrin with which the hon. Gentleman views the removal of the Tea Duty.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYHas the right hon. Gentleman no answer at all to the question on the Paper?
§ Mr. SNOWDENDoes the right hon. Gentleman think he can evade an answer to the question that has been put, by insolence?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWhat was the reason for taking 4d. off the duty on tea?
§ Mr. CONNOLLYIs it in conformity with Parliamentary procedure for the word "chagrin" to be used in answer to a question?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODOn a point of Order. I want to know why it was that you, Sir, stopped the Chancellor of the Exchequer from answering my question. He was quite prepared to answer it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member's question had nothing to do with the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIn your judgment, Sir, is it not desirable for Members of the Front Bench, when replying to questions, to address themselves seriously to the question put, rather than to make clowns of themselves?