HC Deb 08 May 1922 vol 153 cc1825-6W
Mr. G. MURRAY

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the reduction made by the Budget of 4d. per; lb. on tea, the public now expect this reduction to apply to all classes of tea; whether the duty on British Empire-grown tea, which comprises 90 per cent, of the consumption, is only being reduced by 3d. per lb;. whether he is aware that the popular unit of sale in tea being ¼ lb. it is difficult to secure that the full advantage at this figure is passed on to the consumer; and whether he will therefore reduce the duty on all classes of tea by 4d. per lb., or by a sum divisible by four, so that the full benefit may accrue to the small consumer?

Mr. YOUNG

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer the hon. Member to his Budget statement in which he pointed out that the reduction of 4d. per lb. in the Tea Duty did not apply to 90 per cent, of the tea consumed in this country, and in which ho expressed the opinion that the remission of duty would reach the consumer in full. He sees no reason to modify this opinion. It is well known that a large number of traders have already reduced retail prices by 4d. per lb.

Mr. MURRAY

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Budget reduction of tea of 4d. per lb- is acting detrimentally to the sale of British Empire-grown teas and is already inducing the purchase of foreign teas; and whether, with a view to ensuring the advantages from the Budget accruing to British-grown teas in the same proportion as to foreign teas, he will arrange to increase the preference on British-grown teas from one-sixth to one-fourth, thus procuring a reduction of 4d. per lb. on all classes of tea whether British or foreign grown?

Mr. YOUNG

Although the effect of reducing the Tea Duty by one-third has been to reduce by ⅔d. per lb. the margin between the duties on Empire and non-Empire teas, there is no reason to believe that the commanding position occupied by Empire tea in the home market is in any way endangered. I am not prepared to agree to the proposal contained in the last part of the question, which, I may mention, would cost at least £1,000,000 in a full year.

Forward to