§ MR. FLOWER (Bradford, W.)I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that under the Finance Act, 1903, Section 1 (4), a rebate of 10s. a ton has been allowed on glucose imported into this country and 405 in stock on 30th June ultimo, and that a similar allowance has been refused by His Majesty's Customs to the manufacturers of glucose in this country, the reason given being that the article in question is not in the same condition as the raw material from which it is manufactured, and which had paid duty having undergone transformation, although malt, the analogous transformation product of barley, has received such allowance, he will take steps to place British manufacturers on the same footing as foreigners.
§ *MR. RITCHIEMalt is one of the articles specifically dutied under Section 1 of the Finance Act, 1902, therefore rebate of duty on a duty-paid stock of it could not be refused under Section 1 (4) (a) of the Finance Act, 1903. Apart, however, from this fact, I cannot agree that the malting of barley involves a chemical transformation analogous to that which takes place when starch is converted into glucose. Importers of glucose might in any case, by warehousing it in bond, have avoided payment of the duty. On the other hand, makers of glucose in this country had more than two months notice given them to enable them to dispose of their stocks of glucose made from dutiable materials before the duty ceased. The stock of home-made glucose I am informed is very small, so that a remission of the duty does not involve any considerable sum of money, but the principle is highly important, and I do not consider that I should be justified in extending the concession already made. I would again point out that the exceptional treatment given to grain was with the view of preventing disturbance in the grain trade and a consequent rise in prices. The circumstances in connection with the manufacture of glucose are in no way comparable.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is just that the home producers who pay rates and taxes should be treated less favourably than foreigners?
§ *MR. RITCHIEI have explained that imports of glucose would, in any case, have escaped the duty. As a matter of 406 consideration to the home makers we gave them two months in which to get rid of their stocks, and I am sure the House will consider that this was ample.
§ MR. FLOWERI shall draw attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity.