MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Isle of Thanet)I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the lowest scale of wine duties in force in any of the self-governing colonies; and whether there is any ground for the apprehension to which he recently gave expression, that foreign wines might be imported into British possessions and subsequently re-exported to the United Kingdom, with a view to evading the additional duties, if such were not applicable to inter-British trade?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH)So far as I am aware the lowest scale of duty in force in any of the self-governing colonies upon wines, except sparkling wine, is 5s. per gallon. In the ordinary way, any one sending wine from Europe to an Australian colony for re-exportation to this country would bond or tranship it there, so as not to pay the Australian duties. I do not doubt that the Australian Governments would endeavour to make arrangements that would prevent this; but there is always the risk of fraud. In the case of a preferential rate of duty of 2s. per gallon here in favour of colonial bottled wines the aggregate amount of such difference of duty upon 56 gallons of wine (the content of a hogshead) would be £5 12s., or upon 120 gallons (the content of a pipe) £12. Such a stake would be very likely to invite attempts at fraud.
§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)I would ask whether, under the proposed rearrangement of the wine duties, the duties on Australian Burgundies in bottle correspond to a duty of 13s.6d. per gallon of spirit; the duties on clarets in bottle, 17 degs. to 18 degs., correspond to a duty of 16s. 6d. per gallon of spirit; and the duties on Moselle in bottle, 13 degs., correspond to a duty of 22s. 4d. per gallon of spirit.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERIf the proposed duties upon wines imported in bottle had reference solely to alcoholic strength, the rates per gallon of proof spirit contained in such wines would approximately be those named in the Question. But that is not the case. The duty upon bottled wines was designed to fall with greater weight upon the more costly clarets, Burgundies, and hocks (just as the existing surtax upon sparkling wines falls mainly upon champagne), and this it will actually do, because the cheaper still wines will in future come over in cask and be bottled here, and the dearer wines alone will pay the duty of 3s. per gallon. The arrangement, therefore, has the effect of redressing, to a great extent, the defect of the purely alcoholic scale under which a claret or Burgundy worth 12s. per dozen paid the same duty as one worth 80s.
§ MR. COURTNEYMay I ask my right honourable Friend whether my figures are correct?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThey may be, but figures, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the matter.
§ MR. COURTNEYDoes not my right honourable Friend base his case in some degree on the relative taxation of alcohol?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERQuite so. That is, with regard to the duty on wine in the wood, and we are doing with regard to wine in bottle precisely what we have already done in regard to champagne.