SPIRITS IN BOTTLE. (Hansard, 12 May 1899)

§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)
said he hoped the 536 Chancellor of the Exchequer would, either that night or at some later stage of the Bill, be able to place the Committee in possession of information with regard to the probable effect of the new surtax upon bottled spirits. They already had that information with regard to bottled wines, but he would like to point out that, in regard to spirits, it was the practice of the Customs to lump together all spirits imported in casks and in bottle, as well as all perfumes coming in in the same way. No doubt there was a very considerable quantity of high-class spirit which came in bottle, but he imagined that but very little cheap spirit came in in the same form. He did not complain in the least of the amount of the surtax, because, after all, it only represented a very small proportion of the value of the article on which it was imposed, an article which was a high-priced luxury. Let them take, for instance, Eau de Cologne. That was a high-priced commodity, and the effect of the new duty would probably be to induce the house which sent large quantities of it to this country to establish itself and bottle the perfume in England. The same might result with regard to high-class liqueurs, Chartreuse for example. He imagined the selling price of that did not fall far short of 20s. per imperial quart, so that the surtax was comparatively small. But it would have a considerable bearing on the course of trade, and at the same time it would protect the spirit against crude imitations which were manufactured in this country. He pointed out the other night that this tax would specially hit the brandy trade of France, and would considerably interfere with the importation of high-class cognacs from the Charente district in small parcels, a district which was already hit by the increased wine duty. They had, however, no figures before them upon which they could discuss the matter now, and he therefore repeated his appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them the statistics at some later stage of the Bill.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sought to justify the imposition of additional taxes on wine on the ground that if deprived of that source of revenue he did not know how he could make up his deficit. But the other day 537 he (Mr. Robertson) ventured to point out a source of unknown magnitude and as yet untouched. He on that occasion asked the right honourable Gentleman to be good enough to direct his officials to make an investigation with a view to ascertaining what would lie the financial effect of increasing the duties on the retailers of wine, spirits, and beer: what, in fact, would be the effect of raising the licence duties to their full annual value. The right honourable Gentleman replied that that depended on the Licensing Commission, which had taken evidence on the point, and until the Report was presented lie did not think it was for him to interfere. That answer surprised him, for having examined the reports published of the Commissioner's proceedings he had been unable to find any evidence at all bearing upon that important question. He had not put the question with reference to any temperance issues but solely on financial grounds. There had been no doubt suggestions about high licences as a mode of temperance reform, but with that he had nothing to do; all he asked was an estimate of the effect of raising licence duties to their full annual value. He would again press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to direct his officials, who were the only persons who could do so, to frame this estimate. He had intended to raise the point by an Amendment on the Finance Bill, but had good reason to suppose that that would be out of order, as it involved an increase of duty. His proposal briefly was that the increased duty should fall not on the consumer, but on the licence holder, who now paid absurdly low duties, while his mere liability to pay them constituted a valuable asset. He wanted to ascertain the real value of the asset. He might remind them that the London County Council had had to buy up a licence recently at a cost of £11,000; they were going to drop the licence and saddle the ratepayers with the expense. The utmost a retailer of spirits, &c., had to pay as licence was £60 a year; yet the licences were so valuable. Was it right to leave the duty so absurdly low? Why not make the licences pay instead of putting the burden indirectly on the consumers of the commodity? The present was not a defensible position, for many millions a year was; being presented to the holders of the monopoly.

§ * SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
The present system on which the charge for licences is made is no doubt not a good one, and very possibly in the case of the move valuable houses the duty ought to be increased. But I had good reason for the answer I gave the honourable Gentleman the other day. I am informed on good authority that evidence on this subject has been taken, and naturally the Licensing Commission may be expected to deal with it in their Report. Under these circumstances, I do not think it possible or right to institute an independent inquiry by the officers of the Inland Revenue. I may remind the honourable Member that the yield from the duty referred to does not go to the Exchequer at all, but to the relief of local taxation, and I have a shrewd suspicion that the local authorities would put in a strong claim for any increased sum likely to be derived from it. With regard to the question raised by the right honourable Member for the Forest of Dean, when I come to the discussion of the subject in Committee I will give what information I can on the points he has raised.