FELT MADE OF ANIMAL HAIR. (Hansard, 28 July 1938)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross)
I beg to move: That the Additional Import Duties (No. 7) Order, 1938, dated the twenty-second day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-second day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved. The object of this Order is to close a gap in the tariff on felt. Most felt is chargeable with a duty of 20 per cent. and this relates to tissues made wholly or partly of wool or of cotton, hemp, flax or jute. Wool for this purpose includes alpaca, mohair, cashmere, llama, vicuna and camel hair, but it does not include other animal fibres. Consequently felt which is made wholly of rabbit fur has been chargeable only with the general 10 per cent. ad valorem duty. Until recently this has not been of practical importance because rabbit fur felt, which is used largely for hat making, has been imported in the form of hoods. Hoods, I understand, are conical shapes used for hat making and as such are subject to a duty of 3s. per dozen or 25 per cent. whichever is the greater. Recently, however, there has been a substantial importation of this felt in strip or cylindrical forms known as manchons which are cut up and made into hats. The millinery demand for manchons is a new one. Manchons compete with hoods and are made by the same firms. The position, therefore, is that we have two competing articles both made of felt; one, namely the hood, is subject to a duty of 25 per cent. or more, whilst the other, namely the manchon, is subject only to a duty of 10 per cent. The purpose of this Order is to remedy that anomaly and in order completely to close the gap the Order applies to all felts made wholly or partly of hair.

§ Mr. Wedgwood Benn
This Order appears to be a trifling thing, and I do not suppose that in itself it is very important. The first question I would ask is how many milliners are likely to be put out of work if you reduce the amount of this new form of material. That is not likely 3468 to be very considerable. But a point I wish to raise is this: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that these imports come from Czechoslovakia. Everybody who knows what the Czechoslovakian problem is, and what the Sudeten Deutsch problem is, knows that it is largely a problem of exports. As a result of the Peace Treaty, the markets of that part of Europe were considerably restricted. The old Austro-Hungarian Empire was carved up into a number of smaller countries, each of which proceeded to impose its own tariffs.

§ Sir Joseph Nall
That was done by themselves.

§ Mr. Benn
The division was made by the Peace Treaty.

§ Sir J. Nall
The Peace Treaty merely ratified what the Czechs themselves wanted.

§ Mr. Benn
The hon. Member is merely side-stepping the issue. The Peace Treaty broke up the Empire

§ Sir J. Nall
Not at all. The Empire broke up before the Peace Treaty was signed.

§ Mr. Benn
The Peace Treaty is responsible for these separate countries, but the difficulties which exist are due to these economic difficulties. If you go into these areas, you will find, not only in these industries but others, the deep distress which exists. There is a very low measure of unemployment relief. I think it is not more than 1s. 6d. a day. All these things accentuate the grievances of the Sudeten Deutsch. That is one of the things that confronts Lord Runciman. Although we do not intend to divide on this, I would point out that this little thing is another part of the policy which is rendering the political appeasement of Central Europe impossible.

§ Sir J. Nall
The hon. Member has said we ought to let this importation go on and accept all these goods, merely in the interests of the country from which they come. Is that to be the policy with regard to Japan?

§ Mr. Benn
Perhaps someone on the Government Front Bench will explain to their supporter that none of these things come from Japan at all.