REGULATIONS FOR AND ALLOWANCE ON EXPORTATION OF METHYLATED SPIRITS. (Hansard, 23 May 1895)

§ *MR. T. SNAPE (Lancashire, Heywood)
protested against the proposal in the clause to give an allowance or bounty of 2d. per gallon on exported methylated spirits. A similar bounty of 2d. per proof gallon on other plain spirits exported, and of 4d. per gallon on exported compounded or flavoured spirits was given by the Government. These allowances—or, to call them by their more correct name, these bounties—were defended on the grounds that the home distiller was put to extra expense as compared with the foreign distiller, owing to having to distil under excise restrictions, and that they operated as a countervailing duty to the surtax alleged to be charged by foreign Governments. As he had, on former occasions, gone into the reasons against giving these export allowances, he would only say then that, instead of the home distiller being at a disadvantage by the presence and acts of an officer of Excise, the contrary was the fact. The Excise officer was required to be present at all hours free of charge to the distiller, who had nothing to pay even for overtime. The exciseman, by his vigilance, drawing and proving of samples, and in other ways, fulfilled a useful purpose to the distiller, who would otherwise have to engage, in his own interest, paid help to do the work. The bounties were contrary to Free Trade, and were the only ones now allowed in this country on any exported produce, though, if there were any article which least deserved such consideration, it was that of spirits, owing to the harm which they did to the public welfare. As to the allowances being regarded as a countervailing duty, when continental 147 powers gave bounties on exported sugars, we refused, very wisely, to retaliate by countervailing duties, and we ought still more to refuse with reference to spirits. As the export bounties were allowed on other spirits, he would not divide the House on the proposal to give them also on methylated spirits, which were used for commercial purposes. But he protested against the allowances on spirits in any form, and he would not only renew his protest, but would, if the bounties were not abolished, take the sense of the House at some future time as to their continuance. An average of £35,000 annually of public money was thus given away, and though, compared with the large national expenditure, it seemed a small sum, it was a sum the taxpayers of this country ought not to be called upon to pay.

§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was glad the hon. Member did not intend to press the matter to a Division. This allowance of 2d. a gallon on the export of spirits manufactured here was a subject which had been often discussed. It had always been regarded as a necessary and just allowance and a compensation for the interference of the Excise officer in the discharge of his duty. The hon. Member seemed to think it was an advantage to the manufacturer to have the exciseman on the premises analysing the spirits; but it was highly improbable that the manufacturer thought so. All that was being done now was to extend to methylated spirits the allowance made in ordinary spirits. As far as his knowledge went, he believed it to be a fair allowance, and he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with the explanation.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exercised a wise discretion in not loading his Budget speech with detailed explanations of some of these clauses. Some of them seemed to him to be of importance, and it would be right that they should have 148 some general idea of the changes to be made in the law. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to state the object of this clause.

§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the right hon. Gentleman and the Member for Hampstead would remember what occurred in 1893, when he stated the practical effect of the clause. What he said was, that a practice had arisen of attaching to cheques and dividends a form of receipt stating that, "No stamp is required on this receipt." Thus, a person who ought to give a penny receipt stamp was told not to give it, and the revenue lost largely in consequence. He consulted with several bankers on the subject, and they agreed that this was an evasion of the Stamp Act which ought to be stopped. The practice arose in the old days, when the charges were much higher than now, and when certain exemptions were allowed. The clause was settled in 1893, but he found that the alterations made in it to meet the views of the bankers would render it necessary to recommit the Bill, and in order to obviate the delay which that would involve he dropped the clause. On that occasion the hon. Member for Hampstead thanked him for the courtesy with which he had met the views of the bankers, and expressed his regret that the forms of the House would not permit him to move the clause then.

§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that its object was to reduce the Stamp Duty on a power of attorney for the transfer of a small sum of Government stock. The clause reduced the Stamp Duty wherever the nominal amount of the stock did not exceed £100; but it did not alter the Duty upon amounts over £100. The reduction was necessary in order to encourage persons with small savings to invest them in Government stock by facilitating transfer. It was obviously expedient to make the process as little expensive as possible.

§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
explained that the object of the, clause was to replace clauses in local acts, and thus to save trouble to the promoters of private Bills. The collection of the Duty was usually provided for by a clause in a private Act; and there could be no objection to doing it once for all in a public one.

§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
explained that its object was to remove doubts as to newspaper policies of insurance.