SIR ARTHUR BASSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the incidence of the Malt Tax and Brewers' Licence was, as settled by Act, 22s. 8½d. on a quarter of barley, but in effect, owing to the outcast, not more than 22s.; whether the payments to the Revenue, under the present Beer Duty, are fully 2s. per quarter of barley in excess of those under the Malt Tax and Brewers' 30 Licence Duty; whether, under the proposed increased Duty, this excess of 2s. will not be raised to over 6s., or about 27 per cent, more than the old Duties; and, whether this great increase is to be retained in permanence, or is only intended to be imposed as a temporary expedient?
§ MR. HIBBERTThe Duty on malt and the cost of the brewers' licence amounted nominally to 22s. 8½d. on a quarter of barley; but the incidence of the Malt Tax, such as the cost of Excise restrictions on the maker of malt and the interest on the duty, raised the burden upon the maltster and the brewer to 24s. 6½d. There are no means of determining the advantage to the maltster by the outcast above the quantity of malt on which duty was charged; but it varied with the barley season, and with the quality of the barley used. Taking the entire charge for the United Kingdom, the outcast on the malt used by the brewer was inconsiderable. As I have already explained, the payments under the present Beer Duty are not 2s. per quarter in excess of those under the Malt Tax and brewers' licence, nor will those at the new rate be 6s. in excess. Calculations, based on the Returns made by the brewers themselves, show that the Beer Duty at 6s. 3d. did not exceed the calculated burden of the old taxes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to give a serious reply to the last paragraph of his Question. We all must hope that this, and similar increases of indirect taxation, will not be permanent.