Skip to main content

Silk Industry

Volume 236: debated on Tuesday 4 March 1930

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received a communication from the joint industrial council for the silk trade, representing both employers and employed in that industry; if so, will he state the nature of that communication; and whether he proposes now to make any statement?

I have received a resolution from the council referred to advocating the retention of the existing Silk Duties. As I have repeatedly said I am not prepared to anticipate the Budget statement in this or any other matter.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that eight out of 11 trade union members of that council voted in favour of that resolution?

I am not aware of that fact, but I am aware of the fact that there was strong opposition to it by certain trade union members.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present moment there is very serious disturbance in the silk industry owing to his persistency in not disclosing his intentions?

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he is not prepared to anticipate his Budget speech on this occasion?

I have some recollection of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) stating that he has had some experience at the Treasury, and I am very much surprised that, out of his own knowledge, he is not able to give to himself an answer to that question.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to give [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—I am putting "surely" in an interrogative form—Is it not, surely, the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to give to the House and to the country some better reason than he has given to-day for persisting in an attitude of spiteful contumely?

If I were guilty of spiteful contumely, I should find a precedent for that in the action of the right hon. Gentleman in spitefully reimposing the McKenna Duties, an action which has given rise to whatever troubles the silk industry finds itself in to-day.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement with regard to what I was supposed to have said, and I wish to say that I never said it.


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that if the duties on silk and artificial silk are removed there will be a flood of imports from the Continent, and that there is not even a possibility of improvement in the silk and artificial silk industries whilst the present uncertainty remains, he will receive a deputation from the trade so that he may be in possession of the full facts of the situation?

I have already received representations from the silk trade, and several deputations have discussed various aspects of the question with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on my behalf. In these circumstances I do not think there is any necessity to trouble the trade to send a deputation to me.

Surely, it has long been the custom for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the weeks preceding the introduction of the Budget, to receive freely, 10, 12 or 15 deputations from different trades and interests in the country that are anxious about possible financial legislation, and that wish to put their case before him—

Why does the right hon. Gentleman depart from a practice which is so respectable and so long established?

One reason for that is that I do not find so much enjoyment as the right hon. Gentleman did in airing his views before these deputations —[Interruption].

On a point of Order. May the House not have serious answers to serious questions, instead of this continual flow of petty irrelevancies?

I had not finished my reply. If my answer was vulgar, I am sorry that I had fallen into the precedent just set up. [Interruption.] I will complete my reply by saying that last week I received a most representative deputation from the Association of Chambers of Commerce, who raised this matter, and I am to meet another from the Federation of British Industries in the course of a day or two. They, no doubt, will raise this matter, and they, too, will get my views.

Having regard to the great technicality of the Silk Duties, and the special position which this trade occupies, will not the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind the fact that he is a public servant, receive a deputation from the silk industry himself, as Chancellor of the Exchequer? [Interruption.] Will he not, in the course of his duty, receive a deputation from a trade who wish to put the facts before him?

I have already said that deputations representing the silk trade have already been received on my behalf by the Board of Customs and Excise, and all the knowledge in the possession of these industries has been placed before the Board. Therefore, they can add nothing to the information that they have already placed before me.

Is it not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.]

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that very important points of departmental and even constitutional usage are raised by the refusal of a Minister to discharge in the ordinary manner the duties of his Department, and to be accessible to the various interests concerned?

May I not, surely, be permitted to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to act with reasonable courtesy and good feeling in this matter?

I understand that that question of the right hon. Gentleman is addressed to me, and I would say, as regards the continuance of these supplementary questions on this particular question, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to me to have given a very definite answer, and I doubt whether any further pressure will induce him to say more.

On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in accordance with the custom of the House at Question Time for a Minister, when answering questions, to preface his answer to a question by endeavouring to give a rebuke to a right hon. Gentleman on a matter which arose on a previous question?

I think it would be very much better at Question Time to confine ourselves to questions and answers.

May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), having been advised to desist from questioning by you, then proceeded to hurl objectionable remarks across the Table?

I need not specify any individual, but would re-state what I said, that it would be better for hon. Members simply to put their questions and for Ministers to answer them.