§ (1) It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioner's, in the month of January in every year or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in the club during the preceding calendar year, in such form And containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Commissioners, and every such statement shall be charged with an Excise Duty of threepence for every pound of the receipts shown in the statement.
1488§ (2) If the secretary of a club fails to de liver a statement in accordance with this Section, or if he delivers a statement which is in any material particular untrue, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both imprisonment and fine.
§ (3) The receipts of a club from intoxicating liquor shall be deemed to include, where any intoxicating liquor is supplied in the club gratis, the value of the liquor so supplied at cost price, with an addition of ten per cent., and where any intoxicating liquor is supplied in the club at less than cost price, with the addition of ten per cent., any additional sum which would have been received if the intoxicating liquor had been sold at cost price with an addition of ten per cent.
§ (4) If any duty under this Section re mains unpaid after the first day of March in any year, the duty may be levied by distress on the premises of the club in respect of which the duty is due, and the collector of Customs and Excise may, for that purpose, by warrant signed by him, authorize any person to distrain upon the premises, and to sell any distress levied by public auction, after giving six days' previous-notice of the sale:
§ The proceeds of the sale shall be applied in or towards payment of the costs and expenses of the distress and sale, and the payment of the duty due, and the surplus, if any, shall be paid to the secretary of the club, and treated by him as part of the funds of the club.
§ (5) If any duty payable under this Section on the receipts from intoxicating liquor in a club remains unpaid after the first day of March in any year, or if the secretary of a club fails in any year to deliver a statement as required by this Section, the supply of any intoxicating liquor in the club shall, so long as the duty remains unpaid, or the failure continues, as the case may be, be deemed to be a sale of intoxicating liquor without a licence.
§ (6) The Commissioners may make regulations for adapting the provisions of this Section to the case of a club which is discontinued as a registered club during any calendar year, and for procuring a statement under this Section of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in the club up to the date of the discontinuance of the club as a registered club, and for charging the duty under this Section in respect of that statement.
1489§ (7) The clerk by whom any register of clubs is kept shall send notice to the Commissioners of the entry of any new club, and of any case in which a club ceases to be registered, upon the register kept by him.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWould you allow me, Mr. Emmott, with reference to what occurred last night, when the Attorney-General for Ireland challenged the statement I made when we were discussing surrender licences, to read a few lines from the evidence of the late Recorder of Dublin, before the Select Committee on Sunday Closing Acts (Ireland) which sat in 1888:—
As a rule I never give a new licence without What I call a quid pro quo; I make it a removal. If a man shows really very strong grounds for getting a new licence I say to him, 'Well, you are asking me with a. stroke of my pen to give you what you show me is worth t2.000 or £3,000, just as if I wrote a cheque for you for that amount; I cannot do it unless you close somewhat like a commensurate quantity of drink consumption. If you buy up one or two licences and suppress them I will give yon the removals from those houses to the new one that you want.' When this was done once or twice a great many of the less solvent publicans became at once most anxious that they might get a couple of hundred pounds, or whatever it was that would be given for the house that was to be closed, and from which a removal was to be made.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved, in Sub-section (1) to omit the words, "a statement of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in the club during the preceding calendar year, in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Commissioners, "and to insert the words, "particulars of all intoxicating liquors in and brought into the club as follows, namely:—
The Clause we are now considering is a very important one; it creates the tax on the turnover on alcohol in all clubs of the United Kingdom. As the Clause now reads it imposes a tax on the amount realised each year on the retail sales in each club, and it provides that 1490 a statement of such sales and the amounts realised by such sales should be furnished to the Commissioners of Inland' Revenue. I confess I am scarcely favourable, personally, to taxing clubs at all, but we are bound by the second reading of the Bill and by the financial Resolutions, and. therefore we are committed to the principle of taxing clubs, and we are committed to the principle, I take it, that that tax should be on the poundage principle. The only question, therefore, which really is of any importance upon the Clause is raised by the Amendment as to the method in which this proposed taxation should be carried out. I think it will be agreed that that method should have four distinct characteristics. First, it should be simple in principle; second, it should be just as between one kind of club and another; third, it should be incapable of evasion;, and, fourth, it should be carried out with the minimum of trouble and inconvenience to the clubs themselves. If clubs are to be taxed, and the poundage system adopted, it will be generally admitted that these four principles should, as far as possible, be incorporated in the method. I also think it will be agreed that the system in the Bill, as drawn, of a tax of 3d. in the £ on the aggregate sum realised from all the sales in clubs during the year is impracticable.
- (a)the stocks of all intoxicating liquors in the club on the first day of January of the preceding year in the form of ordinary stock sheets specifying the separate articles and the quantities, and in the case of spirits the strengths;
- (b)all the deliveries of intoxicating liquors to such club during the calendar year with the like details, and the prices actually charged or paid for the items;
- (c)the stocks on the first day of January of the current year with the like details."
There is no doubt that to insist on every club keeping and rendering an account of every detail of the sale of liquor during the year and furnishing that account at the end of the year to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, would, in practice, break down altogether and could not effectively be carried out. That is the position in which we find ourselves with regard to this Clause as it stands. What would it involve? There are thousands of transactions in every ordinary club in alcoholic liquors, and it would mean bookkeeping entries with regard to each. Everybody in the Committee is familiar with the expression "whisky and Polly," and if everyone is not personally acquainted with it, he knows it by name. There are also such phrases as "gin and seltzer," and I am informed that beer and" ginger-beer makes a mixture which is called "shandygaff." In every case where a fluid of that kind is ordered there would require to be two entries in order to comply with the Clause as it stands; part of the money would require to be carried to-the alcohol department and part to the-mineral water department. It is obvious that such a system as that would be 1491 impractical and would break down altogether. For the purpose of this taxation it would be impossible to accept mere estimates. You would require to have the actual figures; entries would be essential. In West End clubs with which some of us are acquainted, perhaps this system would not be impossible, because a staff of clerks could be kept and these entries could be made; but in the working men's clubs, of which there are thousands, to insist upon accounts of this kind being kept and rendered to the Commissioners would be absolutely impracticable, and the system would break down before many weeks were over. I think all parties are agreed that if clubs are to be taxed upon a poundage system that taxation will have to be calculated on their turnover. How is that to be carried out in a practical way? I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice of certain Amendments, and the effect of these Amendments is simply to alter the word "sale" into" purchase," and to substitute "sixpence" for "three-pence." I think this would be as unjust and unfair, as the other system, which I propose, would be just and fair; it might be practical, but it would be unjust. I hope to show that it will be essential if you are to get at the turnover for the purposes of taxation, either on one system or the other, you must adopt, either in substance or the actual words, the Amendment I propose. That Amendment provides that, instead of sending in every year to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue a mere statement of the sale as provided by the Bill, there should be some method such as this: The stock at the beginning of the year should be furnished. It is quite simple. There are only a few items. The amount of that stock can be stated, and there is not a well-conducted club in the Kingdom that does not take stock at least once a year. Therefore, there would be no difficulty in clubs furnishing a statement of their stock at the commencement of a given period. If you add to the stock at the beginning the amount of the deliveries into the clubs, and then take the stock at the end of the period, you have all the particulars you need, and you know what the purchases and the sales have been. One of the items will not be necessary except on the first occasion, namely, the stock at the beginning, because that would be the same as the stock at the end of the 1492 previous year. Therefore, in subsequent years two items only require to be furnished, namely, the amount of the purchases and the stock at the end of the year.
What is the result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments if you do not adopt my Amendment? You would entirely ignore all existing stocks. There are plenty of clubs in London with thousands of pounds of stocks consisting of wines and spirits. The effect of this Clause with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments, will be that members of West End clubs in London will go on for 20 or 30 years to come consuming the fluids which were in the cellars of the clubs last year without having paid a halfpenny of tax, whereas the working men's clubs, which have practically no stocks at all, would be paying a tax upon every gallon they get into their club. I cannot imagine a more unjust thing than the Clause as it will stand with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. Someone may say, "Oh! We can get over that perhaps by slightly amending this Clause, and taxing only existing stocks." That would be equally unfair, because those stocks are not for immediate consumption, and to call upon a club with a large wine stock to pay down this extra sixpence would be quite as unjust as leaving the stocks without being taken into consideration. That being the case, we ask ourselves what would be a reasonable solution of the difficulty? There is only one method to adopt, and that is to treat it as a business man would treat an affair of this sort, that is, in a businesslike way. I put it to the Government that they are bound to adopt my Amendment if they are going to have the tax upon the purchases either in the words I have put down, or, as they often prefer, some other more complicated and difficult words drawn up by themselves. It is provided that every club shall send to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue what every club has got, namely, its last stock account. They have to furnish a list of the purchases, and give the amount of the stock at the end of the year. That is not an extra item because it is the same as the stock at the end of the previous year. Therefore, there is only one item extra. When you have that information you are in a position to make your taxation either on sales, which the Government thought at first they would do, or on purchases, which you like. You can take it upon the sales because you know exactly how much whisky and wine has been sold. The differ- 1493 ence between the stock at the beginning plus the amount of the purchases and the stock at the end of the year will give you the exact information you require, and from that any clerk could make out the statement. The Government are in this position: They can drop the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendments, or some of them, which I think are utterly wrong; they should drop the Amendment putting the tax merely upon purchases, and go back to the just and proper suggestion of putting it on the sales, but not on the detailed sales. It should be placed upon the total amount of the sales. The whole matter should be arranged either on the sales or purchases as soon as you have got this information which I suggest you should ask for.
Then there is this further point. If you have the two stocks taken at the beginning and the end of the year you could easily detect any evasion or humbug. You could also see whether the business was being done in the regular way. You could detect any attempt to deceive, and you could put the tax either upon the sales or upon the purchases. I think those Members of the Government who are present to-day, and who have been present during most of the proceedings on this Bill will do me the justice of admitting that every Amendment which I have proposed down to the present moment has been a bonâ fide attempt to try and make workable the somewhat crude and difficult clauses in this Bill, and I put this Amendment forward in the same spirit. We are going to tax the clubs on the poundage system, but let us do it in a just and businesslike way, and in a way which is going to give the minimum of inconvenience and in a manner which cannot be evaded. Do not let us make one law for one class, and another law for another class, but let us do the thing in a proper, businesslike way. It is in that spirit, and without admitting that I am in favour of taxing clubs at all, that I propose this Amendment to insert the words "Particulars of all intoxicating liquors in and brought into the club." Why do I use those words? There are cases where large quantities of wine have been left by will, and where a considerable amount of liquors have been given. If you are only going to use the word "purchases" you are not going to get your tax upon what has been left under a will, or upon what is given to the club. Therefore I think you ought to get your tax upon all the alcohol that is brought into the club.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel)On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member proposes to levy the tax on the stocks now in the cellars of the clubs as they are being used up?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDAs they are being used up, certainly.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is really a comparatively small point, but is that within the terms of the Resolution?
The CHAIRMANThe terms of the Resolution are: "That in the year beginning the 1st day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, and in every subsequent year, a statement shall be made or the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in every club, and of the purchases of intoxicating liquor by the club during the preceding year, and an Excise Duty shall be charged at the rate of threepence for every pound of those receipts, or, at a rate not exceeding sixpence on every pound of those purchases." As I read the hon. Member's series of Amendments to this Clause, all that he seeks to tax is what he puts under item B of this Amendment, and, as far as I can see, that is within the terms of the Resolution. I do not know whether he is really seeking to do something more.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWhen I first saw the financial Resolution I got up and raised this very point, and I think the observations I made bad same effect upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was in consequence of those observations that he altered the form of the Resolution and put in the alternative. When I saw the Clause, I put down Amendments in the same happy-go-lucky, haphazard way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put them down, namely, simply to alter "sales" into "purchases"; but, when I came to consider it from a businesslike point of view, I found that would not be right, and I therefore put this Amendment down, so that you should have stocks plus purchases. You will then have all the material before you, and the Government can please itself in what form it puts the tax. You have got your alternative in. the financial Resolution, and you can now put the tax either upon the sales, from a gross point of view, taking the prices at which they are supplied in the club, and that would relieve you of the difficulty of book-keeping entries of every transaction, 1495 which, I believe, is the best way, or you can in the alternative put it upon the actual sales. If you insist upon putting it upon purchases, you wall not get a tax upon the whole of the stocks, or any part of the stocks of the wealthy clubs of England, which have enormous stocks of valuable wines and spirits. The Kitchen Committee of this House has very large stocks. All those would escape. It is not for me to finish off the Government's Clause. I am doing my duty by proposing this first Amendment, and leaving the Government to get out of the difficulty as best they can. The Government must decide which way they do it. For the present I merely propose that the Government should place itself in the position of having the material before it which is essential for dealing with this subject in an intelligible and businesslike way on either system, and it is upon that basis that I propose the Amendment.
The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member does not seem to propose to alter the basis, and therefore I do not see that this Amendment is outside the Resolution.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIf the hon. Member adheres to sales, then his Amendment is clearly within the terms of the Resolution, for you can impose the tax upon sales, no matter when the goods may be purchased. They may be purchased ten or five years ago, to-day or to-morrow, but if the proposals of the Government are accepted, and we change the basis from sales to purchases, then the hon. Member's proposal appears to be outside the Resolution.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDNo doubt.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt would be outside the Resolution, because you would not be taxing purchases, but goods which had been in the cellars of clubs perhaps for some years. Therefore one preliminary objection to this Amendment is that we do propose, I think with the general approval of the House, to go upon the basis of purchases and not sales. When the Resolutions were before the House there was a general feeling—almost a unanimous feeling—expressed that purchases were very much better as a basis than sales, and I should be greatly surprised if hon. Members would wish to-day to go back upon that opinion and to take a basis of sales instead of a basis of purchases. If that is so, then the hon. Member's Amendment 1496 clearly cannot be accepted now, for he would prevent us later on in the afternoon carrying out what is evidently desired by the House. Now, to turn to the merits of his proposal, he clearly wishes to get at the stocks, and no doubt in theory there is much to be said for that proposal. If it was a matter of very large importance, possibly some effort ought to be made in order to meet his view, but I suggest to-him that in practice none of these clubs live on their stocks. The stock at the beginning of one year is very much the same as the stock at the beginning of the last year. It has been replenished during the 12 months in proportion to the amount by which it has been diminished. The Amendment, therefore, is really not necessary, and, apart from the objection with which I began, if it were adopted it would mean that every club would have to value its stock of wine every year.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIt does.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI dare say many clubs do, but it would be imposing upon a great number of smaller clubs—workmen's clubs—
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThey have got no stocks.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThey must have some stock to carry on from week to week. It would be imposing upon a large number of clubs not accustomed to valuing their stocks a great deal of clerical labour for which there is no necessity, and it would bring in no real return. We propose that the Commissioners shall be able to require such information to be supplied as they think necessary to ascertain what has been the purchases within the year, and for all practical purposes that is sufficient for the purposes of this tax.
§ Mr. A. B. MARKHAMI think the object of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) will be clear to everyone, although he may claim to take a high-minded action in connection with this Budget. He might have told us that during-the last four years there has been an increase in the number of clubs in Liverpool. There are 100 clubs now, against only 80 four years ago. There is a continual increase in the number of clubs in Liverpool in the number of unlicensed premises, unlicensed drinking shops. The hon. Member did not tell the House that all clubs buy a large stock when wine is cheap. The Kitchen Committee of this House does the same. They bought large stocks of 1497 whisky just before the Budget was introduced. The point the hon. Member made was merely one to gain favour with the workmen's clubs. It was purely an appeal to the working men to get their support on this club question. Hon. Members opposite are going to their constituencies to say, "Here is a Liberal Government bringing in a Budget which is going to allow the rich clubs to have no taxation at all on their large stocks of wine." The hon. Member knows that is, I will not say misrepresentation, but purely an electioneering cry. Even if these clubs do not have to pay on their stocks at the present time, the hon. Member is perfectly well aware that when there is a cheap lot of wine of a particular brand which the members of a club like that brand will be bought, and the stock of every club is maintained year by year. In most of the large clubs whose balance-sheets I have been able to get hold of the stock is maintained identically within a few pounds year by year. This is an Amendment merely for political purposes, and I hope the House will reject it.
§ Mr. J. D. REESI would say a word against this Amendment on its merits. The hon. Gentleman said that the stocks of the clubs ought to be taxed, and I understood the Chancellor of the Duchy to say the same. I submit it is not fair that those stocks should be taxed. They were bought out and out under the taxation in force at the time. They are not in the clubs as if they were in bond subject to any further taxation that may be brought in. They are the out and out property of the club, and it would be ex poste facto legislation to take the step which I understand the hon. Member's Amendment would take, and that is to give the tax a retrospective effect, and to levy it upon the liquor bought before. It is all very well to say the stuff is bought, and should subsequently be taxed, but the stocks belonged to given members at a given time, and belong to present members at the present time, and you may not be able at the present day to buy such good wine at the same price. If a club has better wine than it can now afford to buy because it has been handed over as a legacy to the present members, so much the better. It is in the nature of a windfall, but not a windfall of the character which ought to be taxed. I cannot see any argument in favour of the Amendment. Besides, I dispute there are large stocks of wine in the clubs. I believe in London that is contrary to the fact. If 1498 there is any good wine in a club, the members find it out and drink it, and it is not the case that they have large stocks. Is this does not affect the working men's clubs, which I do not think it does, I cannot quite see the object of the Amendment at all. Therefore, for my part, I mean to vote against it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYOn a point of Order. Is it in order for any Gentleman, not a Member of the Government, to propose an Amendment involving any extra charge upon the public?
The CHAIRMANI have looked into the hon. Member's Amendments, and I cannot see that they do involve any extra-charge upon the public. Whether he has in his mind something which will involve an extra charge upon the public is another matter. As far as I read his Amendment, he only wishes to tax under item B, which is in order. What he is not in order in doing is to tax both receipts and sales. I do not think he can do that, because the Resolution says either one or the other.
§ Mr. G. L. COURTHOPEI want to point out the only reasonable ground of opposition which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made to the Amendment is based on an entire mistake. Surely every club must not only have its stock taken once a year, but it must also have a value put on that stock? I am not aware of any club in which that is not done.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI do not want to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily, and, although the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Markham) has blamed me for not mentioning a particular subject, I believe I did in fact refer to it; at any rate, if there was any failure to do so on my part it has been through my desire to shorten the proceedings. With regard to the question of stocks, under the Clause as it stands, all existing stocks will be taxed, because they will be taxed on sale, and, therefore, there is nothing novel in the Motion I am putting forward. I think the Committee will agree that the discussion has not been altogether thrown away, because it has cast a light on the whole subject as to how this matter will require to be dealt with. It is no business of mine to attempt to make the proposals of the Government more sensible. I have simply done my duty, as a Member of this Com- 1499 mittee, in endeavouring to point out that if they are going to tax either purchases or sales in a club you must have stocks taken; you must know what comes into the club, and what goes out, and if you do not take the precaution of getting that information you will lay yourselves open, in the future, to all kinds of evasion and deception. You must have information which will enable you to check these matters. But, as the Government do not see their way to adopt my Amendment, it is not my affair, and I, therefore, respectfully ask leave to withdraw it, feeling I have simply done my duty in bringing it forward.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "receipts from" ["a statement of the receipts from"], and to insert instead thereof the words "purchases during the preceding calendar year of" ["intoxicating liquor supplied in the club."]
This is an Amendment to transfer the tax from receipts to purchases. It has been brought in in deference to an opinion expressed in all parts of the House. There are three reasons which make it preferable to put the tax on purchases instead of on sales. In the first place, it avoids bookkeeping—at any rate, it simplifies it very much, because it will not be necessary to keep an account of every penny received. Secondly, it will avoid the possibility of trying to evade the tax by manipulating prices—by selling at cost price, or possibly below, and raising the members' subscriptions proportionately in order that the club may get off with a lighter duty. This Amendment will enable us to dispense with Sub-section (3) altogether. The third reason appeals more particularly to working men's clubs, and it has been emphasised by the Club and Institute Union. They say that if you tax purchases you are penalising the club, which has excellent premises, and charges high prices for its liquors in order to meet the cost of keeping up the premises. Some working men's clubs are small and inconvenient, and charge very low prices. The idea is that the clubs, with commodious premises, charging high prices on their liquors, shall not be penalised as compared with the smaller clubs.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the decision the Government have come to is a wise one. My hon. Friend the 1500 Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) raised this point in the discussion on the Resolution, and what he then said commended itself to Gentlemen sitting in all quarters of the House. I made a suggestion at the same time, which I was not fortunate enough to get the Government to accept; and I suppose it is too late now to put it into the Ball. I made it as a personal suggestion, speaking for myself only, and it certainly met with a good deal of support in different quarters of the House at the time. I think it is a matter for regret the Government cannot see their way in connection with this Club Tax to make the poundage proportionate to the ratio between the receipts in the club from liquor and those from other sources, in the same way as they have apportioned their tax on hotels. However, I recognise that I am put out of court by the form which the Committee gave to the Resolution on which this Bill is founded, and I do not propose to say anything more on the subject. I only declare myself impenitent, and regret that the experiment was not tried. I think the Chancellor of the Duchy has a peculiar tenderness for the more palatial clubs—the clubs which give large accommodation to their members and recoup themselves by high prices. He sees it would be very unjust to tax these clubs more highly than other clubs where perhaps quite as much liquor is sold, but where it is sold at lower prices because the club accommodation is altogether of a poorer character. I wish he had given full weight to that consideration when we were discussing the cases of hotels and public-houses. I think the Government have not shown so much tenderness for hotels and public-houses as they are displaying towards the better class of clubs under this Clause. Still, they are on right lines now, and perhaps when we get to the Report stage we may persuade them to go a little further and apply the principle generally to all licences.
§ Mr. E. A. GOULDINGI consider that the ordinary trade, taxed as it has been enormously and further impeded in its work by the high assessments to which it is subjected, has been most unfairly handicapped in its competition in legitimate trade by these clubs. I think the time has come when the clubs should be brought under some supervision and made to bear their fair contribution towards the burdens of the State. I have always compared 1501 the position of clubs with regard to public- houses with that of a beer barrel. The beer barrel has two holes; in one a plug is placed, in the other a tap. The public house has always been the tap, and it has always been regulated with undue severity, while, for political reasons, the club has been treated as the bung-hole—the plug has been taken out and the contents have been poured out without any restrictions whatsoever when the barrel arrives at the club. Whatever grievances the licensed trade had before in regard to this question are now multiplied tenfold by the enormous duties put on the trade. The competition to which it is subjected will be all the keener, and men will be driven into clubs, which are nothing more than unlicensed public-houses. I favour this scheme of raising money by a tax on purchases instead of on sales, and I do not see how it is going to work unjustly on the workmen's clubs. There is no doubt the commodities which are bought by the bigger clubs, consisting of expensive wines, and luxuries of that character, would never be included in the purchase-list of a working men's club. Therefore, the contribution to be raised from the large clubs will be quite in proportion to that borne by the working men's clubs. I think the House should bear in mind, in their action in regard to the licensing trade, the extraordinary growth which has taken place in the number of clubs throughout the country. If this taxation will in any way check that, and do some thing to alter the position which exists to-day in connection with these innumerable unlicensed public-houses, which are under no regulations and no limitations, then some good may result. I will only trouble the House with a very few figures. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has, over and over again, willingly or un willingly, -tried to persuade the House and the country that the danger of the increase of clubs is not as great as it is—
The CHAIRMANI hardly think that point arises on this Amendment. It would be more appropriate to the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. GOULDINGVery well; I will only say I much prefer this system of taxation on purchases, and the only regret I have is that the tax is not one shilling or more instead of the proposed amount, because that would be more commensurate with the charges imposed on licensed premises.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWherever drink is sold it ought to bear the same amount of taxation. Whether it is sold by a publican or by the secretary of a club the-tax ought to be the same. We have now, for the first time, given us by the Government a method of fair appraisement of the nature of the tax on the sale of drink. The Government have laid down what they say is a fair charge. They suggest that, in the case of clubs, it is 3d. in the pound on the receipts.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is changing the nature of the tax from a charge on receipts to a charge on purchases? Would it not be in order to say that that method, if adopted in the case of clubs, is also a proper one to adopt in the case of hotels and other premises Of course if I am told I should reserve my argument I will do so.
The CHAIRMANWe can hardly say, on this Amendment, what ought to be done in regard to hotels. When we come to discuss the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill it may be in order to say that the clubs are being let off too lightly, but I cannot see that the argument the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to raise now comes properly on this Amendment.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI want to make sure that the clubs are not being let off too lightly, and I, therefore, ask the Government to tell me upon what ground they fix the tax for clubs at 3d. in the £
The CHAIRMANI think that question will come, so far as it is relevant to the details of the Clause, on the question of amount, whether it should be 3d. or 6d.
Colonel WALKERI wish to point out that possibly there may be confusion if we adhere to the word "purchases" in the Amendment when we come to deal with, some of the large transactions which take place in clubs in London and elsewhere. These clubs, when there is a favourable year for champagne, purchase something like 300 or 400 dozen at a time, and do not take delivery of them, but keep them in bond. The invoice is registered in the club as a purchase, but it will not be paid for, and will not be used for a number of years. I think on wide grounds, although, no doubt, the large clubs will be well able to contribute to the revenue, that it would 1503 be better to have the Amendment in something like a businesslike form, and I should like to add after the word "purchases" the words "and delivery," so that it would read "purchases and delivery." If that is done you get rid of a certain amount of confusion, because a club does not order always the same quantity of wine every year, and if they are well advised by their committee they will only purchase when special vintages are very good, and, therefore, it is wise to buy, so that they may lay down the wines for some years. They would only buy, therefore, when the wines were ripe for that purpose. I may explain, for the benefit of those who do not indulge in this class of liquor, that the champagne vintage, even in a favourable year, is not fit to be drank by a connoisseur for a long period sometimes. Another vintage may he fit to drink at an earlier period than that of the favourable year, and therefore although clubs may order these wines they may not have to pay for them for five, six, or seven years. In the case of port, it may have to be kept for 30 or 40 years.
§ Mr. A. B. MARKHAMMay I ask the hon. Member whether the club would not get the wines at a considerably reduced price on account of their buying these raw wines, for which, when they came to sell, they would get a much enhanced figure?
Colonel WALKERThe hon. Member is a business man, and must know that the wine must be charged with interest at the value that it is in these cases. I, therefore, beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add, after the word "purchases," the words "and delivery."
The CHAIRMANIf that is going to be done we had better leave out the words of the Bill first, and then I can take the hon. Member's Amendment.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question put, "That the words 'purchases during the preceding calendar year of be there inserted."
Colonel WALKERI move that the words I mentioned be there added, but I have not had time to ascertain whether they will read properly with the Clause. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will therefore deal merely with the substance of my Amendment.
The CHAIRMANAre the words to be "purchases and delivery" during the preceding calendar year? I think it would be better to insert after the word "purchases" the word "delivered."
Colonel WALKERmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after the word "purchases" the word "delivered."
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am advised that, in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member, it would be a purchase if a club orders, or pays for, wine; it does not matter whether it is delivered in the cellars or not, it would be a purchase, and there would be a tax upon it; but, in any case, it does not matter at all. They would be taxed upon it, sooner or later, and whether it comes in one year, or another year, for the purposes of revenue makes no difference.
§ Mr. JOHN GRETTONIt is not at all clear as the Clause stands what it is that the Government mean by the word "purchases "—whether the tax will be on the actual price paid, or a standard price; or do they mean the price subject to a discount?
The CHAIRMANWe have the Amendment to the proposed Amendment before us, and we had better get that settled.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. GRETTONI think the Government should give us a little further elucidation as to what the word "purchases" may mean. Of course, if goods are purchased and paid for at the time, or within a few days, the discount would be very much larger than if they are paid for in twelve months, and it is not quite clear whether the Government mean the actual money paid or some other price, because wine, like other goods, is subject to a varying discount.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe wine would be taxed on the actual amount which they paid on delivery.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment made: After the word "liquor" ["purchases during the preceding calendar year of intoxicating liquor supplied"] to insert the words "to be."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
§ Mr. RAWLINSONmoved, after the word "club" ["supplied to the club"] to insert the words "or to members thereof."
1505 The Bill, as it is drawn, is drafted somewhat peculiarly, and I do not know whether it has been mentioned or not as it is drafted now it only applies to wine which has been purchased and supplied in the club, and therefore it does not touch other sales to members off the club premises. There is at the present moment an off-trade in connection with clubs in the country, and after the provisions of this Finance Bill it will become very much larger, because when clubs are taxed it will be the object of club members to patronise their clubs rather than to go for supplies of whisky, etc., to the local publicans or grocers. Supposing during a club football match they want refreshment by the way, the members would probably buy from their club and would get the advantage which the club would get of buying the article at trade price. The article would be delivered at the railway station, the club would get a small profit upon it, and the members would get it at the reduced price. I venture to think that if you tax clubs at all this off-trade should be taxed in the same way as trade done inside the club. They are in direct competition with the local publican and the local grocer, and after the passing of this Act that competition will be greater than it was before. Therefore I think that to limit the taxation simply to the liquor supplied in the clubs h an unduly narrow provision, and the tax ought to apply to off-sales as well as to sales on the premises.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Government, of course, are in entire agreement with the hon. Member in the purpose which he has in view. Undoubtedly the goods supplied for off-consumption to clubs ought to be taxed just as much as those supplied for consumption inside. We disapprove of the off-consumption in regard to clubs at all, and it is regrettable that it is permitted under the Act of 1902. In our Licensing Bill of last year we proposed to prohibit the sale off the premises. The point, however, is covered by the Bill as it stands, as it does not apply to liquors supplied in clubs and consumed in clubs, but to all liquors supplied by the club, although it may be for off-consumption. Clause 27 of the Act of 1902 regulates the off-sale of liquors by clubs, and says it is to be limited to members, and must not be sold to persons other than members. These are the words: "Intoxicating liquor shall not be supplied in a club for consumption 1506 off the premises, except to a member of the club, and if any person supplies," and so forth, there is a penalty, so that the words of our Clause closely follow the present law, and I think the words "supplied in" cover the supplies of liquor off the premises.
§ Mr. MARKHAMI should like to know if the Solicitor-General agrees with that interpretation. Take a case which frequently happens in my part of the world, where a club take a barrel of beer and bring it Into a field. Is that barrel of beer consumed in the club? It will be perfectly easy for that barrel of beer not to pass through the club receipts. Or take the case in Cardiff, where they formed a club which had no premises at all. That is a club within the meaning of the Act of 1902, which covers any club, wherever it is formed and whether it has premises or not. Is it quite clear that the Bill as it stands would cover a case where beer was sold in a field, which may be a mile away from the club? I only want to make it clear, as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is a learned counsel, and I want to know how the law stands. In case these clubs should escape, I ask if the Attorney-General will confirm what the Chancellor of the Duchy has said on the point?
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe ordinary publican is compelled to keep a stock-book and a number of other particulars, and I cannot see why, under this Amendment, the same harassing restrictions which are put upon the publican should not be placed upon clubs. There is no other means that I can see of meeting the case. The Chancellor of the Duchy said the point is covered. It is not, because you are going to take a statement from the club manager, whereas there is a right of entry by the Excise man and a right to apply measuring instruments to every cask upon the publican's premises. The object of the Bill is equality. You ought to have equality of tax, equality of admission, equality of regulation, and equality of restriction. A most excellent point has been made that the ordinary publican may, by this club system, be prevented from getting his ordinary business profits, because a furtive system of dealing may be instituted; but the only way to prevent a furtive system of dealing is to put the clubs under the same restrictions as the publican. I do no see why we should not go the full length in this matter. The 1507 gauger ought to have a right of admission to the club. In the case of the publican the local gauger knows to an ounce how much liquor the publican has on his premises. He can go in and examine his stock-book, and the furtive dealing struck at by this Amendment in the case of a club will only be detectable on the mere ipse dixit of the manager of the club himself. The Chancellor of the Duchy says this point is covered. How is it covered? Is it covered by any other method than taking the statement of the secretary?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the matter is covered by the word "purchases." Whether they are consumed off the premises or not, they are supplied in the club and sold at the club.
§ Mr. G. D. FABER (York)The Solicitor-General has not met the point. The tax is to be levied on purchases during the preceding calendar year. The end of the year comes, and the secretary has to make a return of the amount which is to be paid over to the Exchequer. We will say, for example, that £900 worth of drink has been bought and consumed on the premises, and £100 worth has been bought and consumed in the way that the hon. and learned Member describes. When the Exchequer officer demands his 3d. in the £ on the whole £l,000, might not the secretary answer, "No, it is true that £1,000 worth of liquor has been purchased during the year, but only £900 worth has been supplied, in the words of the Clause, in the club. The other £100 worth has been supplied direct to members not in the club, or through the club, but outside." On the form of the Clause it appears to me that the hypothetical case I have taken will escape the 3d. altogether.
§ Mr. HART-DAVIESIf it was not bought in the club it would be an illegal sale. All this liquor which is supplied to the Members on the off-system is really liquor which is bought in the club and afterwards taken by them out of the club.
§ Mr. G. D. FABERIt is not an illegal sale if it passes from the secretary to members outside the club, and has never been in the premises of the club at all.
§ Mr. HART-DAVIESBut all the liquor has been sold in the club.
§ Mr. YOUNGERWe had evidence about this before Lord Peel's Commission, and 1508 there were certain clubs in Wales which had sundry drinks in fields quite removed from the club altogether, and which ordered supplies of liquor to be sent by the brewers to those fields, and they assembled there and drank them, and thus evaded the Sunday Closing Law. Would that be-liquor supplied in a club? I say, "Certainly not."
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThat would not be a club before 1902. But the matter might be put beyond any question, though I do not think there is any reasonable doubt about it now, by adding the words "in or to a club."
§ Captain FABER (Hants, Andover)Suppose you have beer supplied direct to a railway station. It might have been ordered by the club or by some member of the club, but the beer would never get beyond the railway station, and it would be delivered from the railway station to the purchaser.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThat would certainly be covered by inserting the words "in or to the club."
§ Mr. MARKHAMI contend that there is no obligation on the part of the secretary to make a return where the liquor is not consumed in the club. The Clause reads:—
"It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioners in the month of January in every year, or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied to the club during the preceding calendar year."
Clearly the secretary is under no obligation, as far as I can see, to make any return of any liquor which is not sold in the club itself. The Solicitor-General may-say it may be an illegal sale, but it may be supplied to football matches and cricket grounds which are situated a mile away. It wall make the matter clear if he will insert after the words "supplied in the club," "or on behalf of the club, or in, or to the club."
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThat would be a club in its corporate capacity, whereas the position taken up by the hon. Member (Mr. Markham) is quite different. The liquor supplied in the case put by him is-liquor supplied for a cricket match. That is not supplied to the club; it is not "in the club" or "to the club." Some one 1509 says to the secretary of the club, "You are in the habit of getting liquor from such a brewer. What do you charge for a wholesale order?" He says, "I get it on the same terms as for the club." That is not for the club, and yet it is because of the existence of the secretary of the club that the whole thing is arranged. It is an injustice to the local vendor of liquor, who has to pay a very large Licence Duty.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI really do not think my point is appreciated. There is nothing illegal whatsoever in the club purchasing beer to be consumed in a field under the existing law. The Section which the Chancellor of the Duchy relies upon in the Licensing Act does not apply to sales in fields or at a railway station. It deals only with proceedings which occur on the club premises, and is limited to goods supplied in the club. Therefore, the illustration which I gave of a club coming up to London to see a football final, and desiring refreshment on the way, and having a gallon of whisky sent to the station, does not come under the present law. In that case they would probably patronise a club in preference to the local vendor, and it is such purchases as those, which are perfectly legal at present, but which redound to the profit of the club as distinguished from the profit of the grocer or beer dealer, that are not touched by the Bill in its present form. My Amendment would deal with all those cases. The Solicitor-General's Amendment would not, I think, hi perfectly clear upon the point. It would be difficult to construe what it meant—whether a barrel of beer sent to a football field was liquor supplied "to" or "in the club." The majority of us would say such a case did not fall within the Clause.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI think the hon. and learned Member's Amendment is too wide. It would cover a sale to any member of the club. What we want to secure is that the duty shall be paid in respect of all the purchases by the club, for consumption either in the club or off the club—of liquor supplied, in some form or other, to any of their members by the club.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI think there is some substance in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gen-man. The word "club" is used in two senses by the Solicitor-General. The words "in the club," I take it, mean in the club premises, and the words "to the club" mean to the club members.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI think some such words as "on behalf of the club" should be inserted.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI wish to put a point to the Solicitor-General. I am a member of a club in which a very considerable quantity of wine and spirits is consumed, and yet that club does not buy a single bottle of wine or spirits. They have an arrangement with a wine merchant under which his list of wines and spirits is placed on the table. The liquor is ordered by the members as required, and it comes in in small quantities with the consent of the club. It is sent upstairs and consumed. The club makes a charge for it on the bill to the members, but the club as a matter of fact in its corporate capacity does not buy a single drop of that liquor. I simply throw out the suggestion that the Clause as proposed by the Government, together with all the Amendments put down on the Paper, including the Amendment now before the Commitee, does not deal with that case at all. I venture to suggest that before long you will find that you have got into inextricable confusion on the question of this taxation.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI do think when we are going into the Pharisee business we ought to enlarge our phylacteries. We should say that all liquor sold in a club, directly or indirectly, should be treated in exactly the same way as the liquor sold by a publican. That is what we should do, unless we mean to play the part of hypocrites. Hon. Members above the Gangway say that the Clause is too wide. Are we not engaged in getting revenue? Do you not want "Dreadnoughts"? If you do, the wider the Clause the better, because the more revenue you will get from it. This Amendment says that a statement is to be made of all intoxicants supplied to members of the club. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not the Amendment."] That is substantially the Amendment. It is to secure, at all events, that liquor indirectly sold to members of the club shall be subject to duty. What we want is a tax on all this liquor. The local publican will have to pay an enormous duty, and I want the club put in exactly the same position as a public-house, so that a member of the club will be in the same position as the man who goes in to 1511 the "George Inn" and buys liquor. The Revenue should receive the same amount from the man who consumes liquor in a club as from the man who receives liquor in a public-house.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONIf the Clause stands as it is drawn, even with the Amendment which the Solicitor-General proposes to insert, it will give opportunity for evasion. Say that a club consists of 100 members, and suppose that 50 of them arrange to go out and see a cricket match, and these 50 members go to the brewer or distiller who ordinarily supplies liquor to the club, and say to him, "Will you send down to the place where the cricket match is to take place liquor such as you send usually to the club? We are going to the match, and intend to have a jollification in the evening." That would not be liquor supplied "to the club." The Solicitor-General says it would; but I say no, because 50 members of the club are not the "club." Nor would liquor supplied to one member of the club be liquor supplied to the club. It would never go to the club at all, and the secretary would know-nothing about it. It is perfectly clear that evasion on the largest possible scale would ensue under the Clause even when amended in the way the Solicitor-General proposes. If the Government desire equality between these clubs and public-houses, manifestly they ought to accept the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. They have totally failed to show what possible objection there can be to the Amendment.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThis is not a question of sincerity or insincerity. Let me point out to my hon. and learned Friend what would happen if we were to accept the words he proposes. It is his intention to apply the Section to liquor supplied to members of a club. How do you get out of the difficulty in regard to liquor supplied to a member of a club, who quite independently of his being a member of a club buys the liquor from a wine and spirit merchant? Very likely he goes to a particular wine and spirit merchant because that person does supply the club of which he is a member. Surely it is not suggested that a private transaction of that kind should be put down to the account of the club and taxed, and yet it appears to me that the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend would cover a case of that kind.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe Sub-section says: "It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioners, in the month of January in every year or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied in the club during the preceding calendar year" The object of my Amendment is that the club should pay the tax on all liquor bought in the way I have already indicated. The Government intend to limit the tax by saying that the return is only to show the receipts from intoxicating liquor supplied "in the club." A private transaction like that referred to by the Prime Minister would never be returned by the secretary at all. I say that all liquor supplied in the club or to members thereof during the preceding calendar year should be taxed.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am sure that is what my hon. and learned Friend means, but it is not carried out by his Amendment. I will take the case put by the hon. and learned Member of the 20, 30, or 40 members of a club who for their own private convenience get a gallon of whisky supplied by the person who ordinarily supplies their club. Is that a transaction which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to include in the tax?
§ Mr. RAWLINSONTwo things could be done. The members of the club might buy the liquor through the club secretary, and in that case it would be included in the club's accounts, or they might purchase direct and not through the club.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn the first case it would be liquor supplied to the club, that is to say, on the credit of the club. If the secretary ordered the liquor it would be charged to the club. If, on the other hand, the members on their own account bought a gallon of whisky and the secretary knew nothing about it, would the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member make it liable to duty? I have no objection to the insertion of the word "to" or the words "on behalf of."
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI would suggest, further, that the Clause should read "intoxicating liquor supplied in or to the club, or on behalf of the club, to members thereof."
Colonel WILLIAMSMay I suggest that the case would be met by putting the word "by" instead of the word "in."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDo the words the Government propose to put in meet the case of my hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford)? He may be satisfied, but I do not think the case is met. He may well be satisfied, because he has pointed out that the club to which he belongs does not pay on the liquor consumed there. There is no sale to the club in that case. I think it may be a matter for argument, but it appears to me that if you do not cover that case, you open wide the door to evasion and fraud henceforth, not only in the case of a few clubs which have wine merchants' lists on the table, but in the case of every club. You may have not merely wine merchants but brewers making arrangements by which they will supply their liquor to clubs. If the Government is satisfied that the case is covered, I am satisfied. It is really for them to say.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI would suggest to the Solicitor-General that he ought to add the words "or through the club" to those which he has suggested. If those words were put in, they would cover every conceivable case.
§ Mr. MARKHAMWe have had a very illuminating example of the differences between the views held by learned counsel. The Solicitor-General, in his answer, said that the words of the Amendment are totally unnecessary, and the legal Gentlemen on the other side say that the case is not covered without these words. It is, therefore, difficult for a layman to say whether the case is covered or not.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of the Solicitor-General.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "in" ["supplied in the club "] to insert the words "or to."
§ After the word "club" to insert the words "or on behalf of the club to members thereof."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
§ After the word "club" to omit the words "during the preceding calendar year."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved, after the word "Duty" ["Excise Duty of"], to 1514 omit the words "three pence," and to insert instead thereof the words "six pence."
It is true that 6d. is not an exact equivalent of the profits, which, as a rule, are under 100 per cent., but there was a general expression of opinion at an earlier stage in the Committee that it was advisable to raise this sum to 6d., and for that reason the Government have introduced the Amendment which they now move.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI would expect the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the effect will be of this Amendment and what are the comparative terms given to persons who occupy those premises and to publicans. I think we have now struck for the first time what I may call a datum level, from which you may appreciate the exact justice of the Government's proposal in regard to hotels and public-houses. A club has no monopoly. Any number of persons can start a club. Therefore they can sell liquor. That being so, I think we ought to be informed whether the proposal of the Government is more favourable to the persons who form clubs than it is to the persons who start hotels or who pay money for public-houses. They are all engaged in the sale of liquor, and hotels, in addition to that, very often are conducted at an enormous cost, and give very valuable entertainment and accommodation to strangers. But the essence of the club is selfishness, because as a rule it confines its accommodation and entertainment to individual members. It is a sort of cooperative society, whose members are engaged in enjoyment for their own selfish purposes Why can the person in the club sell liquor on the terms that are proposed if hotel people cannot do the same and when the publican cannot do the same, especially as publicans and hotel people are subjected to very savage restrictions at times and to domiciliary visits from the police? They are bound to keep stock books. A gauger can come in at any moment and put his rod into their vats, and test how much they have got in the shape of wine or whisky, and whether they have grogged the casks or watered the liquor, and there are a whole lot of things in the shape of requisitions which are not allowed in the case of clubs. Therefore, the least we can do is to deal with the sale of liquor on a similar basis all round. It is all very fine for Members of this House to say that clubs are great political institutions, and that the Carlton, the Reform, and the National Liberal Clubs are great political 1515 institutional I do not see why political institutions should be allowed to sell liquor on more favourable terms than the common hotel-keeper or the ordinary publican, especially under a Government which is so strongly in favour of Free Trade. I do not see why restrictions should be put on the trading of a publican or hotel-keeper who has embarked large sums in his business. Some of these hotels recently erected in London have cost a million of money, and they are in the hands of a receiver. That is because they are endeavouring to gain upon the public. A club is a most selfish institution; it is for nobody but its own members. Therefore I do think the fact that so many Members of this House are Members of clubs ought not to make them any more lenient, but should rather make them stiffer in dealing with clubs than with hotels and public-houses. And this must be remembered. There are a great many teetotalers who are members of the clubs, and, although these clubs sell liquor, they look with horror on the idea of anybody entering a public-house, when, in fact, the club of which they are distinguished members draws its chief revenue from this very sale of liquor which they so much abominate when sold by the common publican, who pays an enormous Licence Duty to the State.
Therefore, in this case, speaking for the common publican, I wish to ask is there any system of differential treatment being extended to clubs by this Amendment? I have no figures and no information. I have no means of forming an opinion, but hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are engaged in raising revenue, of course must have formed estimates, because we know very well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when dealing with this system is only considering the revenue of the country; his great cry is, "I want to raise money. Here is another hen-roost, the club. I will go in and take a certain amount of revenue from that club." Let us have an estimate, which up to the present, as far as I know, nobody has received, from the official responsible for giving it to this House. Let us treat the clubs on exactly the same basis as the publican or the hotel-keeper. Therefore I ask for information as to how many clubs there are in the country, and what is the amount of revenue that is proposed to be derived from them? And now let me say a word in favour of the clubs. It may be that this is unjust to the clubs 1516 and charging them too much. If so, there ought to be a minimum. The words of the Schedule enable a minimum duty to be proposed, which will be found on page 50 of the Bill—minimum duty payable for publicans' and beer-house licences. It may be that the proposal of the Government to impose sixpence on purchases will involve them in a far higher charge than, for instance, would be charged to the publican or hotel-keeper. That possible injustice must be guarded against, because, with a democratic Assembly like this desiring to mete out justice with an even hand and to deal with the publican fairly, we must see that we deal with clubs with an equal amount of impartiality. Therefore I think there should be a minimum scale of Club Duty, and we should see that no club in the United Kingdom is allowed to be taxed a shilling more than a hotel or public-house. The Government Amendment, so far as I can understand it, is only a rule of thumb. What I would suggest in order to avoid that is this. We have a Bill promised us for next year on the question of valuation, and I would suggest that there ought to be a register of clubs, just as there is a register of public-houses under Clause 30, that very valuable Clause on which we have spent such a large amount of time. The Commissioners are to keep a register of all fully licensed premises and beer-houses, but they are not to keep a register of clubs. I want to know why not?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThere is one.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYNot for this purpose. There is a register of clubs for a wholly different purpose, and if this register is properly and adequately kept by the Commissioners of Valuation we shall then have struck a very valuable additional source of revenue, and the Bill of next year, I am quite sure, will be able to extract from the Reform Club at least as high a taxation as you propose to get from the Carlton Hotel, the Hotel Cecil, the Savoy, or any other of the great caravanseries of London. Let us then create this register in the promised Bill for next year, and we shall have it put in proper, active operation. My last recommendation is this. There is really more necessity for dealing with this matter in the case of clubs than in any other case, because it is the one instance in which the teetotaler is open to temptation. In the case of a public-house nobody frequents these premises except, I suppose, the hardened sinner, but in the case of the club 1517 we know very well that a great many persons of innocent mind. Liberal and Conservative, frequent these institutions where drink is sold, and are therefore open to its demoralising seduction; and that makes it all the more necessary that this register should be provided in the future. Up to the present we have no information of any kind. If the suggestion I make be adopted we shall have in the proposed Bill of next year adequate means of applying rigidly that system of fairness and equality all round which I recommend. Therefore for the present my attitude is one of a person who is seeking for information and who is asking the Government on what basis this 6d. is to be imposed.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. Healy) in one part of his speech appeared to contend that clubs were not sufficiently taxed compared with hotels and public-houses, while in another part he seemed to suggest that there was considerable doubt as to whether any case was made out for taxing them at ail. In regard to his proposal to have a register, I can very shortly state that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not appear to be aware that a register is kept in all the three kingdoms of clubs which would be subject to this taxation.
Under the Licensing Act of 1902 in England, in Scotland under the Act of 1903, and in Ireland under the Act of 1904—in all these cases clubs which supply intoxicating liquors require to be registered, and, therefore, the materials are at hand. As regards the numbers, according to the latest Return for 1908, the numbers are in England, 7,133; Scotland, 636; Ireland, 225—roughly speaking, 8,000 registered clubs. It is from those 8,000 clubs that the revenue to be derived from the taxes will be received. As to the amount of the proceeds of the tax, of course it is extremely difficult until we have had experience to make anything but the roughest possible calculation, whether you base it on sales, which was the original proposal, or whether you base your estimate upon purchases, which is the form the Clause now assumes. It is really a conjectural matter, and the best estimate we can form—and it is highly conjectural—is that the proceeds of the tax will be something like £100,000 this year. I do not pledge myself, nor do I pledge the officers who have assisted us in this matter, to that as being in any sense a binding or arithmetically accurate calculation. As regards the scale of the tax—6d.—there 1518 are two points which, of course, arise. First of all, how does it compare with the original proposal of 3d. on sales, and how far is it a lower scale of taxation than that which is imposed on public-houses and on hotels? On the first point the 6d. is admittedly—and here again we are to a large extent in the region of conjecture—likely to produce more than 3d. on sales, and which, I think, is more in consonance with the very general expression of opinion in all quarters of the House at the time of the original proposal. There are Amendments on the Paper to reduce the 6d. to 2 per cent. I think 6d. is 2½ per cent., but there are-Amendments to reduce it to 2 per cent., which will be something like equivalent to 4¾d; but the Government, after consideration, and after looking into the arguments, think that 6d. is not too high a tax. I come to the more important point, how you differentiate this duty from that on hotels and public-houses. Let me point out first of all that this is the first time any proposal has ever been made to tax clubs. Hitherto they have escaped scot-free, although they supply on a considerable scale liquor to members. In such a matter we must proceed, at any rate, with caution. There is a clear distinction between clubs and hotels and public-houses, and I do not think the representatives of clubs themselves will deny that they ought to be taxed, and that they ought to make some contribution to the necessities of the State. That, I believe, is common ground; but there is, obviously, a distinction between the case of a club and the case of a licensed house. In the case of a club there is no monopoly value; anyone can set up a club under certain regulations contained in the Act of 1902, and in the analogous Acts for Scotland and Ireland. In the second place, the transactions which take place are not in point of law sales at all. The liquor can only be lawfully supplied in a club to those who are members of the club itself. It follows that the liquor transactions of a club are not carried on like those of an hotel or a public-house, which necessarily are for the sake of private profit. All those circumstances must be taken into account when you are trying to arrive at some rough rule of thumb as to the relative proportion of taxation to be borne by the club as compared with licensed houses. We think that in regard to all those circumstances we are not asking an excessive 1519 sum by any means in asking 6d. and we are asking for a sum which for the first time will bring a substantial contribution to the necessities of the State.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURWe all agree with what the Prime Minister has said, though we are left in the dark as to the statistics of actual consumption in clubs. We cannot ask the Government or the Prime Minister, we cannot justly claim on this new departure in taxation, and we cannot expect him to give us those full and accurate details which we may reasonably ask from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is dealing with some old source of revenue. That I do not gather is the real difficulty before the Committee, nor is it the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) had in his mind when he initiated this Debate. We want to know from the Government what is their precise policy, what they are aiming at, and on that the Prime Minister, if he will allow me to say so, has thrown no light at all. He has used arguments which, if he will forgive me for saying so, rather darkened our counsels than illuminated them, and they were of rather a technical than of a substantial character. He referred to two arguments, to two peculiarities, which, he said, differentiated the club from the hotel or public-house. One was that in the club there were no sales for private profit, and the other was that they had absolutely no monopoly value. Surely we may dismiss these two propositions entirely from our minds. I believe clubs do make profits out of their sales. It is quite useless to draw a distinction. If I go into a club to which I belong and have my dinner and pay for it there is really no difference, as far as I understand, between that and my going into an hotel and having my dinner and paying for it. It is exactly the same thing. There is a profit made by the club as there is a profit made by the hotel. In the one case the profit goes to the members of the club, and I assume it is divided among the members. The real, the relevant point, however, is the question of monopoly value. The Prime Minister said these clubs have no monopoly value because they can be started by anyone. That, of course, is perfectly true. What we want to know is, how does he justify taxing people who have a monopoly value when he allows that monopoly value to be interfered with by any number of persons who have got no monopoly value. The 1520 whole case, I ought to mention, becomes-greatly aggravated when you increase the scale of taxation. You are now making the scale of taxation on licence holders enormous—you are enormously adding to-their burdens.
Therefore, the very thing which might only be a slight injustice before, becomes magnified to a point of great injustice, and if you are going to tax people heavily solely on the ground that they have a monopoly, ought you not to prevent that monopoly from being interfered with, or ought you not to tax those who do interfere on a scale corresponding with that imposed on other people who have got a monopoly value? I think you are throwing burdens that are quite absurd on the trade, but if that is your policy, if your policy is to throw an exhausting burden on the trade, I do want to press the Government to be perfectly clear and to elicit an answer to this question: Is the policy that the clubs shall pay on the same rate and scale as the licensed premises, so far as the sale of intoxicating liquors is concerned? If not, why not? I think it is quite possible that it would be thought intolerable to put clubs on a corresponding scale of taxation to that of public-houses. I can well believe that you will not do that for electoral reasons. What is your view of the equities of the case? For my own part, looking at this matter, I think we are now stirring up the whole question of licensed houses and clubs, and you are bringing to mind the operation of these enormous burdens on the licensed trade. I think when we have reached that stage in our legislation we have a right to require from the Government a clear statement of what it is they are aiming at by this Clause. Is this Clause merely a sop thrown to the critics of the Government, without any principle behind it at all, or is it a serious attempt to put the same burden on clubs that you put on licensed premises? I am not acquainted any more than the hon. and learned Gentlemen below the Gangway sufficiently with the details of the trade to know how, supposing this taxation become law, a club will stand compared with the public-house in respect of burdens thrown upon the dealing in intoxicating liquor. My conjecture would be that you are dealing with them on a very different scale, and that you are throwing a burden on licensed premises which you do not throw on clubs. I am not criticising the specific proposals of the Government, I am only begging them to give me what 1521 surely we have a right to ask for, namely, a clear and definite statement of the ideals at which they are aiming—the policy which is underlying their proposal; and to make my question even more precise and specific, do they accept these proposals to throw an equal burden on public-houses, or do they intend, supposing they are proved unequal, at the earliest moment, when that becomes clear, to modify their proposals so as to equalise the burdens between the two classes? If they intend to differentiate, on what principle do they mean to have that differentiation, and how, if they allow a monopoly to one class, do they intend to prevent that monopoly from being interfered with to an unlimited extent by institutions which, though admirable and of benefit to the community, undoubtedly do interfere with that very monopoly which is the basis of the whole taxation on licences? I should be grateful to the Prime Minister after the excellent speech he has already given us, if he will make a specific statement as to the policy of this Clause.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI thought I had made it clear already, and I can only repeat what I have already said. I pointed out that the Government do realise that these clubs stand on a different footing, in respects which I clearly indicated, from licensed houses. They have no monopoly value. It is perfectly true that some clubs will compete with publicans and may take from them customers. That is perfectly true up to a certain point, but to say that they stand on the same footing as public-houses, where anybody can go in when he likes, and order liquor to any extent that he likes—to say that an institution of that kind, which is open to all members of the public, which is carried on entirely for the private profit of the licence holder, stands on the same footing as an institution which can only supply those who are bonâfide members of it, and where no profits can be made which do not go back to them in one form or another, appears to me to be a patent absurdity. It is not the basis of an equitable system of taxation. What the precise amount of the burden is proposed by this Clause upon the clubs as compared with that which will fall on public-houses, we have not yet got information to form an accurate judgment. It is a very great step in advance to have 'brought clubs for the first time within the ambit of taxation—a proposal never made, as far as I know, by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. These glaring inequalities, 1522 which they now regard as so monstrous, never struck them until now. Let me point out it is only a question of degree. Because we have increased the taxation of public-houses that would not justify the pre-existing state of things, in which clubs, pay nothing at all, although the public-houses and hotels pay not so much as is-now proposed. The inequality would have been greater if this Clause had not been amended. As I said, it is impossible to estimate anything in the nature of the-precise and relative amount of the burden which would be borne by the clubs from, the charges we are now making.
§ Mr. F. E. SMITHI am sure the Committee will feel very much indebted to (the Prime Minister for having responded to. the appeal made to him by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) for an explanation. I must confess, after listening with considerable attention to the explanation given by him, I am still largely in the dark as to the principles which have induced the Government to come to what is their final conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman in the first place said that we who sit on this side never dreamt of a Licence Duty to be paid by clubs at all. I daresay that is quite true, but it does not appear to me to be remotely relevant to the discussion, and that it has nothing whatever to do with it. The point is whether the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman as to this proposal is an adequate one or not. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a plain, simple question by my right hon. Friend, and the question is this: "Have you made up your minds that clubs ought to pay less than public-houses, or have you not?" As I understand it, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to that is this: "We have made up our minds that clubs ought to pay less than public-houses, but we have not made up our minds how much less they ought to pay, and we do-not, in fact, know at the present time how much less they will pay under this duty as compared with public-houses." The Prime Minister gives two reasons why clubs ought to pay less than public-chouses. The first of the reasons is that they do not enjoy any monopoly value. The right hon. Gentleman supports that argument by saying that in the case of public-houses anybody who wants can go and drink, but that nothing of the kind takes place in clubs. I can only, say that the right hon. Gentleman must be deplorably ignorant—I do not use the words in any offensive sense—of the whole affiliated system of clubs-Hon. Members on the other side of the 1523 House have frequently explained the extent to which the affiliated system applies at the present time, and I would ask the Prime Minister to bear it in mind. At the present time a working man who belongs to any affiliated club in any town in England can go to any other town and go to any one of probably half a dozen clubs, and in that club he can obtain drink at any hour of the day or night and on forbidden hours on Sunday. The Prime Minister made an argument which could not have been put forward from a knowledge of these facts, which are universally admitted in the case of the affiliated clubs.
Then he says that public-houses are given a monopoly value, and that clubs are not given a monopoly value, and that, therefore, it is reasonable that public-houses should pay on a larger scale than clubs. I never heard such an argument before. What has that argument come to? Take the case of a small village with, say, 20 or 30 people who desire alcoholic refreshment every evening. Assume that there is no club or public-house there, and that these people obtain the grant of a licence for a public-house. They start that public- house, they go to it, and they have the monopoly for which the right hon. Gentleman says it is right they should pay on a higher scale than the clubs. In that particular village, with that limited trade, 15 other people start a club, which not only encroaches upon, but destroys the monopoly, and yet that is put forward as an excuse for differentiation. I am astonished that anyone of the forensic equipment of the right hon. Gentleman should even think he has addressed an adequate reply to the charge of disparity which has been made. What is the second argument that the Prime Minister advances to the House, which is very familiar with these questions? It is that because, in the technical phraseology of our licensing laws, when drink is obtained in a club it is technically called "distributed," and when it is obtained in an hotel it is "sold"; therefore that is some reason for exacting a lower rate of duty in the club. Would anyone but a lawyer use such an argument as that? and I am astonished that even a lawyer should choose an assembly of laymen to address it to. I could understand it being employed in a technical assembly. Let us suppose the Solicitor - General is leaving these Debates, in which he plays so able a part, if he will permit me to say so, and that he wishes to refresh 1524 himself on the way home. Supposing two hotels are open to him and that he would desire to have, say, half a bottle of champagne. Now suppose he can have that either at the National Liberal Club or the Metropole Hotel. Now observe the emulating discovery that is made by the Prime Minister. If he happens to obtain the drink in a club it is only "distributed," while if he obtains it in an hotel it is "sold," and because of that reason the Hotel Metropole is to pay a much higher rate than the National Liberal Club. I cannot help thinking that the Prime Minister has somewhat underrated both the sources of information which are open to him and the sources of information which have already been opened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy will be able to inform the Prime Minister that a comparison has been made, not perhaps with absolute precision, but with considerable precision, of the effect of this new burden which is proposed for clubs in relation to the new and existing burdens on publichouses. I very much doubt whether the Chancellor of the Duchy will say that no such comparison has been made, because no more complete condemnation of the methods by which these Budget proposals have been formulated could be advanced than to tell us that no data existed for such a comparison. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said:—
Clubs in which liquor is supplied at present compete to a very large extent directly with the ordinary public-house, and this competition of an alternative and untaxed method of distribution is not only unfair to the holders of publicans' licences, but likely, in the long run, seriously to encroach on the revenue derived from Licence Duties.6.0 P.M.I venture to think that the "long run" of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks is not likely to be a very long one with this taxation on clubs which relatively is insignificant, and which is to exist side by side with the vastly increased taxation on public-houses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated the revenue from the clubs as £80,000, and it is now estimated the yield of this tax will be £100,000. That would mean about six million pounds of takings to produce that, and I want to compare that with the analogous state of affairs existing in public-houses. I give a calculation made by an expert authority who has been repeatedly quoted in this House, and always on both sides with respect; I mean Mr., Buxton. What he says is: suppose a club pays on the new basis £30, that means that it has received £2,400 upon the sale of 1525 liquor. Then what is the sum paid by an ordinary public-house which receives £2,400. The premises are rated at £325, and the Licence Duty is £162 10s., or five and a half times more than that paid by the club. I desire to present the argument moderately, and I am willing to suppose some material considerations have been overlooked. As I wish to put the case with studied moderation, I will take it that the incidence of this burden will be at least three times as high as in the case of licensed victuallers as it is in the case of clubs. If that be true, what conceivable justification which will commend itself to the country or to hon. Members opposite can be put forward for this differentiation? No justification has been put forward, except that tentatively sketched rather than argued by the Prime Minister with regard to sale and monopoly value. While disclaiming any desire to reflect in any way on the fairness or reasonableness of the Government, I confess that I can only arrive at one possible solution of the problem, namely, that the Government conceive themselves to be injured by the licensed victuallers' trade. In other words, they know that the licensed victuallers' trade consists of their political enemies. But the case is notoriously different when you come to the clubs. I have said before in these Debates that there is hardly a London Member sitting on the other side of the House who could hope to keep his seat if it were not for the efforts of clubs in which alcohol is sold. It is because of the pressure which in the sight of all of us was brought to bear on London Members by their own clubs last year the Government make this discrimination by which they endeavour to injure their enemies by destroying their trade, while they benefit their friends by retaining a relatively small duty. Only the other night much heat was manifested because it was suggested that the Sugar Duty was taken off for election purposes in Dundee. I say plainly here, as I shall say plainly in the country, that the one and only reason for this discrimination is that the Government hope to obtain an electioneering advantage by helping their political friends.
§ Mr. HART-DAVIESI think that all clubs owe a debt of gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having altered the tax from sales to purchases. But when this was done it was not understood that there was to be any additional burden put upon clubs. I thought the object was to 1526 avoid the bother of finding out what the sales actually were. The clubs believe, and I think they are right, that 6d. is a little high. A large club to which I belong has made a calculation from which it appears that the real difference between 3d. on sales and the amount they ought to pay on purchases is only a penny. Other clubs estimate it at l½d; but they all agree that 6d. is rather too high. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way to reduce the amount, if not to 4d., at all events to 5d. If they would do that they would remove what the clubs feel to be a very substantial grievance.
This Debate has dealt, not with the actual merits of the sum proposed, but with the difference between public-houses and clubs, and with the question why they should be treated differently. I cannot speak for the policy of the Government, but my policy will be to encourage clubs as much as possible at the expense of public-houses. There is all the difference in the world, from the point of view of the social reformer, between a club and a public-house. If you could show that public-houses have libraries and reading-rooms, that they are connected with all sorts of charitable institutions, that they form centres of really civilised social life, then I should say that public-houses and clubs ought to be treated in the same way. I have always admitted that there is a difference between clubs. Some clubs are moat admirable institutions. They are centres of great social, civilised movements; they have connected with them orphanages, friendly societies, charitable societies, rifle ranges, rifle corps, and football clubs; they do a very great work in the way of social improvement. On the other hand, there are small clubs which are mainly drinking clubs. There ought to be some way of defining the difference between these two sorts of clubs. The club which is a real club, a real centre of social improvement, ought to be taxed altogether differently from the club which is a mere drinking shop. In the Licensing Bill of last year we tried to draw a definition of the difference between these two classes of clubs, but when that Bill went the definition went also. The policy of any Government towards clubs ought to be to differentiate between the good, respectable, and useful club and the club that is only a substitute for the public-house. I should like to see the latter kind of club treated and taxed in exactly the same way as a public-house.
1527 This discussion has rambled over a very wide field. I have often observed that when a matter gets into the hands of lawyers a somewhat circumscribed view, or at any rate not altogether a wide social view, is taken of the problem under consideration. There are many drawbacks to sitting in the month of September. Personally, I object to it strongly. One of the drawbacks is that in September the courts are closed, and all the lawyers can be present, as they have nothing else to do. Of course, I value their co-operation, and I hope they will not be offended by the observation I have made. I had hoped that after the discussions of last year the old argument that public-houses and clubs ought to be treated on exactly the same footing would have vanished. The two are not in the least on the same plane. They are totally different things. Legally and socially they are altogether different. Why they should be treated and taxed in the same way I have never been able to understand. I do not know whether the Chancellor will favour my application for a reduction of the tax. I am afraid he will not; but I wish he would, because the working men's clubs do a very great work. The Budget, after all, has a certain number of enemies, and we do not wish to add to their number.
Colonel WALKERThe Prime Minister has told us that there are 8,000 clubs. We must compare that number with 120,000 licensed houses. There are 15 times as many licensed houses as clubs; therefore, if the taxation on the clubs is to b ring in £100,000, to be on equal terms the public-houses ought to contribute £1,500,000. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer reckons on obtaining £2,600,000.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNot after the concessions. The hon. and gallant Member has provided us with a most excellent argument. The revenue at present proposed to be derived from places of retail sale, apart from the manufacturers, is about £1,600,000, or almost precisely the figure which the hon. Member says would be just in comparison with the taxation on clubs.
Colonel WALKERI wish the calculation of the right hon. Gentleman was a correct one. I am sure that the contribution from the trade in respect of the Licence Duty will be very much more than appears from his speech. If we had to make a bargain in that way we should be 1528 quite willing to accept a figure in the same-ratio that the number of clubs bears-to the number of public-houses. In the meantime, according to the terms of the Bill, the amount is unlimited, and we do not know what it will come to. It will certainly be very much larger than 15 times the amount paid by the clubs. The clubs ought to pay a shilling instead of 6d. to bring them up to the same ratio.
Mr. TYSON WILSONWe on these Benches have not troubled the Committee with many Amendments or speeches in the-course of the Budget discussions, but we desire to put forward our view upon this-Clause. We do not agree with the remarks which have been made that the duty paid by clubs should be higher than was originally proposed. This is the only Budget proposal which has been increased. Concessions have been made to all other interests; therefore I hope the Government will agree to reduce the 6d. to either 4½d. or 2 per cent. Now, I think that almost everybody will agree that there is a great difference between clubs and public-houses. There has always been, and there always will be. But what is the reason of the opposition to the proposals of the Government? I did not quite understand whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) was in favour of increasing the charges upon clubs, or of reducing the charges upon public-houses. I take it he wants to treat them equally all round. He pointed out the harsher burden that the publican was asked to bear. But who is it that is asking the publican to bear the heavy burden? It is the brewer! The one reason why the party above the Gangway are in favour of the taxing of clubs still higher is because clubs are in a position to refuse to pay the increased price for beer asked by the brewers. That is why the brewers and their friends-are in favour of taxing the clubs higher. We know the clubs have refused to pay the increased prices the brewers wanted to charge. The brewers are meantime asking publicans and all friends of freedom in the country to sympathise with them. They ask for that sympathy plus 6s. per barrel on beer! I do not see why we as working-men should concern ourselves very much with the complaints that they are making. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Hart-Davies) that there is a great difference between clubs and public-houses, for the simple reason 1529 that clubs provide means of recreation and public-houses do not. I also want to point out that clubs do a certain amount of educational work—at least I am speaking now for working men's clubs that I know. I am not speaking for rich men's dubs. The membership of clubs in my Division would never affect an election whenever it took place, and I am not speaking, therefore, from a tactical point of view. But the working men's clubs that I know do a certain amount of educational work. They run a series of lectures during the winter months, and they also provide—some of them, at any rate—a fairly good library for their members. That being so, I say there is a great difference between the club and the public-house. I hope that the Government will recognise that the profits made by working men's clubs are used in a manner which is beneficial to the member's. The educational advantages gained by members of the clubs are spread over a larger area than the membership of the club. There is a value attached to a club—I would not like to say a monopoly value, but a value which enables members of clubs to buy their liquor on better terms than the landlords of tied houses. I think that this proves, or, at least, it suggests itself to me as an argument in favour of co-operation and Free Trade. If the members of the clubs can resist the unjust demands of the brewers and obtain liquor without the extra tax the brewers are putting on the publicans I say that is an object-lesson in favour of co-operation and Free Trade on the part of the workmen of the country. But I got up for the object of appealing to the Government to only exact an equivalent-duty from clubs to what they originally proposed in the Finance Bill and Budget Resolution. I know objections were raised against the proposal. It was said that a tax on sales would be difficult to collect. But if you collect an equivalent on the purchases it would not be difficult to collect. It would be an easy matter to obtain the amount of duty to be paid by clubs. That being so, we are in favour of a tax on the purchases, but we believe that tax should only be the equivalent of the original proposition in the Budget Resolution. I therefore appeal to the Solicitor-General to favourably consider the Amendments down in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney or the Amendments down in my name or other Members of the party.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI sincerely hope that the Government will not give way to the appeal of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hart-Davies) and the hon. Member who has just spoken. They have both argued that because clubs are different from public-houses therefore this tax should be lower. But there is a missing link in their argument. I do not deny that clubs are very different from public-houses, and that there are good clubs and bad clubs. But that is no reason why the drink sold in clubs should be taxed less than the drink sold in public-houses.
Mr. TYSON WILSONThe drink sold by clubs is taxed exactly on the same footing as the drink sold in public-houses.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI for my part welcome the addition of more taxation at any rate upon clubs as a counterbalance to the extra tax which is to be put upon public-houses. I should like to see it an equal tax. Of course there are inequalities. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool drew a picture for the benefit of the Solicitor-General of the difference between the Hotel Metropole and the National Liberal Club. But he did not mention that in the National Liberal Club the Solicitor-General, if he buys his drink there, has already paid a considerable tax in the shape of his subscription to the club. If the hon. and learned Member considers what the subscription to London clubs is he will allow that it does constitute a tax on the drink—light, of course, on a moderate drinker like my hon. and learned Friend. But when all these allowances are made, I myself am of opinion that the tax of 6d. is not certainly a higher tax than ought to be put on a club. I, therefore, strongly support the Government. At the same time it is useless to pretend that the 6d. now proposed is anything like the equivalent of the taxation which it is proposed to put either upon hotels or public-houses. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should it be?"] Let us see what this tax is which the defenders of clubs are complaining about. It is an exceedingly light tax. A deputation from the clubs waited upon the Prime Minister last November. Representatives of some 2,500 clubs with a membership of 910,000, with Mr. Hall, of the Club and Institute Union, and Mr. Salbe, representing the Association of Conservative Working Men's Clubs, represented between them really about one-third of the clubs in the United Kingdom. Mr. Hall estimated that the consumption of drink 1531 per member in his clubs amounted to 10d. per week. Mr. Salbe's estimate was 8d. per week in the country clubs, and 10d. to 1s. in the town clubs. So that I shall not be far wrong if I take 10d. per head per member as representing the consumption of drink in these 2,500 clubs. That works out at £2 3s. 4d. per year each. On the membership of 910,000 it amounts to about £2,000,000. Let us assume for a moment that the profit on the sale is about 50 per cent—it is very often higher. I have here the report of the Mildmay Radical Club for the year ending December, 1907. The purchases of beer, spirits, and wines was £1,500, and the sales of the same were £2,914. That includes mineral waters. They had practically the same stock at the end as at the beginning of the year. In a word, liquor is sold in this club at about twice what it costs to buy. The gross profit is over 100 per cent. on the purchases in this club that I am dealing with. So that I am not taking an excessive estimate when I take 50 per cent. as the ordinary profit made in the clubs. The £2,000,000 therefore represents purchases of £1,333,333. The tax of 6d. on this sum will be £33,000. That is the total that will be paid by these 2,500 clubs with their membership of 910,000. That works out at a tax of 8½d. per member per year. I say that is a very small tax indeed to inflict upon the members of these clubs. I do not think any reasonable member of a club will resist the proposal that he should contribute his share to the Budget, which they all say they support. It does not seem to me to be a heavy tax, this 8½d. per head. I must point out that this tax is very much less than the tax which we are now proposing to put on the best hotels, and still more is it less than the tax we are proposing to put on public-houses. I have tried to work out what the compensation value will be if we apply it to clubs, and I find that the estimate of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool of three times is about the mark. In view of this, the taxation that is now being proposed for the clubs is not at all unreasonable. It does seem to me that the members of clubs may very well accept what the Government propose.
§ Mr. E. H. PICKERSGILLIt is urged that clubs should be placed upon the same footing as public-houses, and that the publican is unfairly handicapped by the proposals which the Government are submitting. In considering this question it 1532 seems to me that we must distinguish between a proprietary club on the one hand and a co-operative club on the other. So far as a proprietary club is concerned, I can conceive, with the hon. Member opposite, that it would only be just that it should be put upon the same footing as a public-house. I regret very much that the Government have not seen their way to-distinguish between proprietary and cooperative clubs. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy told us in the earlier stages that this distinction was impracticable. For my part, I cannot for the life of me see why it is impracticable, and I think the Government have missed a great opportunity by not differentiating between proprietary and co-operative clubs. To suggest for a moment that a co-operative club is identical with the case of a public-house is an astounding proposition. There is no parity between the two cases; I will not refer to the absence of monopoly in the case of the club. A distinguishing feature—and one that is vital in regard to the question we are now considering—is this: that a sale in a public-house is for the benefit of a particular individual, whereas the sale in a club is not for the benefit of any individual. It is no more justifiable to put a special tax upon the consumption of intoxicating liquor in a cooperative club than it is to put a special tax upon the consumption of liquor in a, man's own house. The Peel Commission distinctly recommended against putting a tax upon clubs. When hon. Gentlemen opposite challenge the Government to say what is their principle in taxing co-operative clubs, I say there is no principle, and there is no principle in regard to the particular amount at which that tax is fixed. But we have passed from that stage; the House has agreed to put a tax upon clubs, and, therefore, it is not open to me to argue that clubs should not be taxed.
I think, however, that some of us have a little reason to complain of the Government in this matter, having regard to what passed when this question was under discussion before. I certainly understood that the only change was to be in the basis of the taxation, and that it was admitted that whilst the Government were about to change the basis, they desired only to take, under that new basis the equivalent of what they would have taken under the old basis. I think that was understood; indeed, as far as my memory goes—I may be wrong—something amounting to a pledge was given by the 1533 right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that should be done. It is agreed that under this new proposal you are getting more than under the old proposal. We have had some figures given by my hon. Friend behind me with regard to a particular club. I am disposed to think there must have been some mistake or misapprehension with regard to that club. At all events, if these figures are accurate it is an exceptional case. I hold in my hand a statement forwarded to me by the secretary of the Clubs Union, and it appears from that statement that the equivalent of 3d. on the sales would be 4.46d. upon the purchasers. I think the Government ought to have adhered to their undertaking that in altering the basis no change in the amount would have taken place. I do not join in the condemnation which has been expressed from both sides of the House with regard to clubs. You have, of course, to distinguish between clubs. Undoubtedly there are many clubs, and a very large number of clubs which are doing a good educational and social work. If you bring forward in this House proposals to put down bogus clubs I will go with you to the utmost extent, but I protest against the attempts which are made not only from this side of the House, but from the other side to discourage the genuine bonâ fide working men's clubs.
I said they did a great deal of social work. May I remind hon. Members of one good piece of work? They are already maintaining one convalescent home, and the right hon. Gentleman is to open, on behalf of the Clubs' Union, a new convalescent home at Saltford. That is only an illustration of the excellent work, social and improving, which has been carried out by these clubs, and I do not think the Government ought to do anything to discourage good, genuine, bonâ fide clubs. My object in rising was to remind the Government of something which I described as approaching near a pledge; that in changing the basis they desired only to exact the equivalent of the tax they had already outlined, and I hope therefore the Amendment will be accepted.
§ Mr. REMNANTI would not have risen but for the remarks made by the hon. Member below the Gangway, when he referred to the raising of the prices on the clubs by the brewing trade of this country. He said if the clubs were in a position to refuse the brewers that would not happen. In saying that I do not think he appreciated all that his words meant, and I do not believe there are many hon. 1534 Members of this House who really appreciate what the effect of the taxation which, the Government are proposing is having in. this country, especially in reference to these clubs. Hon. Members may be surprised to know that these great clubs are themselves starting breweries in different parts of the country.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYDoes the hon. Member mean convalescent homes?
§ Mr. REMNANTThey are starting breweries with which to supply their clubs and to supply affiliated clubs throughout the country.
§ Mr. JOWETTGood co-operation.
§ Mr. REMNANTThis is the first time I have heard the brewing industry of England described as native industry. The effect of this is that by the heavy taxation which the Government are proposing the public-houses will be crushed out and licensed premises will be diminished, while these clubs with their own breweries will flourish. Others are arranging to open new clubs where licensed premises were before. In these clubs liquor will be sold' under conditions that would be impossible if the Government intended to deal fairly and squarely with various classes of the community instead of crushing those they believe to be their political opponents, and favouring those whose votes they expect at the next General Election. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated that sales in clubs are not for the benefit of anyone. I should like him to tell me how in his Constituency the entertainments which are given by clubs are paid for?
§ Mr. PICKERSGILLI did not say there-was no profit upon the sales. I said it did not go into the pocket of any individual.
§ Mr. REMNANTYes, that no individual got any benefit out of the profit of the clubs. Are the entertainments that are given no benefit? If not, why are they held? Of course they are of benefit. They are paid for out of the intoxicating liquor which is sold in the club under more favourable circumstances, so far as making profit goes, than on licensed premises. The Government are pretending to deal fairly with this question, but they are dealing with it most unfairly, and they are driving the sale of drink from licensed premises which are under control into 1535 premises which are not licensed and are uncontrolled. If the Government wish to raise taxation equally and fairly they know the simple way of doing it. But this is part of the reactionary scheme of the Government, and we know perfectly well what it is done for. They are driven into a corner to find a cry with which to go to the electors, and they think this will afford them one.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI think it is somewhat unfortunate in the general opinion of the Committee that a discussion upon this particular proposal should turn chiefly upon a comparison of the relative social merits and respective social functions served by clubs and public-houses. It is said that the club performs social and educational functions, and the public-house does not. But the obvious retort is that in the case of the publican he is not free by the laws of this House to perform these social and educational functions. I am not questioning for the moment the wisdom or propriety of that particular legislative arrangement, but it does seem to me that it is well to remember it when drawing a distinction between public-houses and clubs. The real question before the Committee is not one of the comparative merits of clubs and public-house, but it is strictly, as the Leader of the Opposition put it, one of fiscal equity. This House has for a considerable period decided that the privilege of the selling of a particular commodity is a fit and proper subject for taxation. If that principle be universally applied, and it is universally applied in every other form of distribution of liquor except that of clubs' distribution, I see no reason, in strict fiscal equity, for failing to apply precisely the same principle to the distribution of liquor in clubs. I certainly hope that whatever the ultimate decision of the Government, that decision will not take the form of submitting to the plea advanced on this side of the House towards modifying the proposals in the Bill. It seems that while the case for the taxation of clubs has always been unanswerable and logical in equity, it must appeal to this Committee much more strongly now when we are revising the whole scale of taxation on this commodity, and in increasing the taxation of the publican and other licensed traders you must have some regard to the competitive forces ranged against him. I hold, as the Committee knows, very 1536 strong views as to the fiscal justification for the proposed taxes, but on the same ground on which I am prepared to advocate a substantial increase in licensed publicans' taxation, on that identical ground I am prepared to put in a plea for the application of the same fiscal principle to the sale of liquor in clubs. It is perfectly true that the present proposal differs somewhat in strength from the original proposal as introduced in the Finance Bill, but I do not think the actual effect will be substantial. It cannot for a moment be claimed that a taxation of 2½ per cent. on the purchase cost of liquor representing something like l½ per cent. on the actual takings from the sale of liquor is an excessive taxation to apply to clubs. The hon. and learned Member for Louth asked for some suggestions as to the relative incidence of taxation as between the publicans and the clubs. It is obviously impossible to give anything like an answer to that question, and I do not intend to submit to the Committee anything like a final figure. I have, however, analysed the balance-sheets of something like 600 clubs in various parts of the United Kingdom, spread over 40 or 50 separate towns and cities, and on the basis of the returns of those clubs I have calculated that the original proposal of the Government would have yielded a revenue of £80,000, and that the present proposal will bring in about £100,000. That calculation is based on the assumption that the 600 clubs I have investigated—and they were thoroughly representative—are typical of the clubs which exist to-day in the United Kingdom. So far as the relative incidence of taxation is concerned one cannot pretend to offer a final or exact figure. There is no figure ascertainable which would show the proportion to the total consumption of alcohol in the country sold over the bars and counters of public-houses.
I will take another figure which has never been questioned by the representatives of the trade, and about which I have been assured it is as near as it is possible to arrive at. I calculate that under the new system the ordinary publican will pay something like 6 per cent. on the total cost of his liquors, as compared with 2½ per cent. in the case of clubs. I know there is a distinction to be drawn between the club and the public-house, but I submit that that distinction tends substantially to decline so long as you allow the privilege of sale for consumption off the club premises. So long as clubs have the privilege of selling not only for consumption on the premises 1537 but for consumption elsewhere, it is very difficult to see where the actual or substantial difference between the club and the public-house comes in. It is perfectly true there is a distinction, but it is one of degree. Anyone is allowed to enter a public-house, but only a member can obtain liquor from a club. The clientele, although different in the case of the club, is secure, and so long as there is sale allowed off the premises I submit that the managers and the committees of clubs have no right to appeal to us for any radical or revolutionary departure in the application of a fiscal principle as compared with other licensed traders. For these reasons I hope the Government will not whittle down their proposal.
§ Earl WINTERTONWe have just heard a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and I find myself, for the first time, in agreement with him. I will not touch upon the question whether clubs are, or are not, too heavily taxed. I want, however, to take up a point which has not been fully dealt with, namely, whether or not there is any fiscal equity in raising the tax under this Clause upon clubs in this way in face of the larger tax proposed in other part of the Bill on public-houses. Do the Government want to improve morals or raise money?
§ Mr. VERNEYBoth.
§ Earl WINTERTONThat is the hon. and gallant Member's view, but his opinion is not always in accord with has own party.
§ Mr. VERNEYOn this point I am quite in accord with the Government.
§ Earl WINTERTONI am now speaking of licensing legislation as a whole. You have to consider this Clause in conjunction with other proposals affecting public-houses which are made in the earlier part of this measure, but in spite of what the hon. Member has just said, the two main principles in regard to this part of the Bill are not consistently carried out. We have never yet had an answer to that argument. The hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool put the same question earlier in our Debates, but we have never had any answer to it. The real issue could not have been given in a better or more concentrated form than that in which it has been put by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. What is the fiscal equity of placing a much smaller taxation upon clubs than upon public-houses? Already the 1538 taxation upon liquor as a whole in this country is larger than it should foe, and under this Bill it will be much larger than in any other civilised country. I do not want to see heavier taxation upon clubs, but we have had no answer from the Government as to their real attitude in this matter. How they can consistently propose this duty after what they have done in the earlier clauses of the Bill I cannot understand. This Debate will be a very useful one, because no one who reads the proceedings in the country can for a moment doubt what has been said that the reason for the Government's attitude on this matter is to be found in the fact that while they know that those who own and manage public-houses are against them, those who belong to clubs are divided, and they are afraid of losing their own supporters in the clubs. The Government believe that by attacking public-houses they will be doing themselves no harm, but if they put the same taxation on clubs as upon public-houses they would lose every seat in London, and probably every seat in every large town in the country.
§ Mr. BARNARDI hope the Government will adhere to their proposal because the tax upon clubs in my opinion is barely enough. I think it would have been a good thing if all distributors of liquor had been charged upon some regulated system, and I have risen to try and find out why the Government have chosen this particular figure in connection with clubs. We have heard what relation 2½ per cent. is supposed to bear to the taxation which is imposed upon the ordinary licensed victualler. It seems to me there are a few other considerations to be taken into account. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Government whether they drew any distinction in this matter upon the question of monopoly. We need not argue the question of monopoly at all in this case, because the licensed victualler is called upon to pay a compensation levy, which safeguards his rights, whatever they may be; and, further than that, if we come to look at the particular position as it is, we also find that the licensed victualler and the hotel is called upon to pay at a higher assessable value; he is also called upon to pay Income Tax, whereas the people in the clubs escape all those contributions. That brings the position to this, that the Bill will make the competition greater through the clubs with the licensed victuallers and the large hotels, because many of these big clubs have bedrooms 1539 and trade enormously in that respect. I should have preferred it if the Government could have adopted some scale on what we will call annual value and treated (these clubs more or less on the lines they are treating the hotels.
Let me for a moment point out the relation between what these clubs will pay it comparison with other distributors of liquor. From the figures which have been given it will be imagined they will pay on £4,000,000 worth of alcoholic liquors. We have been told that the ordinary licensed victualler is paying something in the nature of three times as much as the clubs. I have made a calculation which I think is worth mentioning. It so happens that in the part of the country where I live I am chairman of the rating committee, and we have valued all the public-houses in our district within the last month. That valuation has been made not by one valuer only, because there were two valuers representing the county council, one representing my own union assessment committee, and one representing the browers, and they all agreed upon the valuation of these licensed premises. I took the trouble to get the figures and the quantity of the trade done in those particular houses, and I find that the figures of 7½ per cent. versus 2½ per cent. is a very moderate figure indeed. I will not go any further into that question. We heard last night, in answer to a question, that 1,000 more clubs have come into existence since the passing of the Compensation Act of 1904. We also know that the number of licensed houses in the country has gone down by 4,000 during the same period. Under these conditions I think the Government would have been acting a great deal more wisely if they could have put a larger charge upon these people in view of the increasing competition in the distribution of liquor which undoubtedly is arising. Under these circumstances I hope the Government will adhere rigidly to the position of their own Amendment.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. SUMMERBELLI intend to resist the Amendment which has been put forward by the Government. A good deal has been said with regard to working-men's clubs. I assert that if there ought to be modesty of language in regard to anything, it certainly ought to be in regard to the question of clubs, so far as this House is concerned. Clubs are no new things in this country, and we have had them for many years. We have had 1540 political clubs, gentlemen's clubs, and many others. We never heard anything about the evil appertaining to clubs till a year or two ago, and now a certain section of this House have discovered that clubs are an evil, and must be grappled with and dealt with as hardly as possible. Some hon. Members say this is a sop given to the working men, and that it is an election dodge. I defy hon. Members above the Gangway to go into a working-class constituency and make the statements they are making here to-night.
§ Mr. MARKHAMI have made them in every speech I have made in my Constituency.
§ Mr. SUMMERBELLI would remind the hon. Member he is not an hon. Member above the Gangway. I am talking about hon. Members above the Gangway, and we have had declarations from them that this is a political dodge and a sop to the working men.
§ Mr. MARKHAMI agree.
§ Mr. SUMMERBELLI am very glad to know the hon. Gentleman agrees with those on this side of the House above the Gangway. I would not defend a working men's club which is merely a drinking club, but I know that the clubs in the county I come from, and the clubs I have sampled in various parts of the country, are respectably, intelligently, and fairly carried on. If there be a black one here and there, it is not right or proper to take it as a sample, and upon that basis legislate for the whole. I am not prepared to say the present taxation of public-houses is the fairest possible, but there is a great difference between the ordinary public-house and the working men's club. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Barnard) pointed out that 1,000 clubs have come into existence whilst there has been a decrease of 4,000 public-houses. We have, however, to realise that many clubs have been started by the very men who have lost the supply of drink by reason of the 4,000 public-houses being abolished. They have been started by the brewers themselves, and if you want to find a bad club, and one which is purely used for drinking purposes, it will more often be a club started by a brewer and adjoining the place from which the licence has been taken away. By all means let us legislate against a club of that character, but do not 1541 let us make the same legislation apply to clubs in general. When the Bill was first introduced it was fully discussed, and the Government decided to adhere to the original proposition of a tax of 3d. It is perfectly true that certain Members argued that 3d. was not enough, but the Government knew perfectly well the amount of revenue they were going to get, and they made no attempt to alter it in any way. What justification is there for the change from 3d. to 6d. now proposed? We have an Amendment down suggesting 2 per cent. That would give them more than they originally asked for, and I venture to think it is a fair proposition.
We ought to try to be as fair as we possibly can, and to remember that working men in various parts of the country have by reason of the tied-house system been compelled to commence clubs. I am not here to defend the liquor trade in any shape or form, but if men like a good glass of beer they have a right to get it if they possibly can, and if they live in a district where the public-houses are tied and they cannot get the class of beer palatable to them, then, I say, they have a perfect right to form a club in order to get the beer they prefer, and get the best they can. If working men by forming clubs are going to introduce certain desirable things into the social life of the country it ought to be commended and not condemned by Members of this House. I was in a club not so long ago. I am prepared to give the name and to have the fullest investigation. It was in a small place in the county of Durham, where they have a club with something like 2,350 members, of whom 700 are teetotalers. They have the usual billiards, a large reading room. & splendid library, a grand concert room, a string band; they have spent something like £30 in getting a cinematograph and are also making a separate entrance into the concert hall, and they are going to give during the winter entertainments to their wives and children. If we can encourage that kind of thing we ought to do so by all means in our power. If there are clubs used solely for the purposes of drinking, and not for the purposes I have enumerated, then by all means let us pass a law that will make them do the proper things, hut do not let us have a condemnation of clubs as a whole. I think clubs as a rule are respectably and well conducted, and, if hon. Members want to be fair to them, I would advise them to go into the districts 1542 where working men's clubs exist and tell them frankly, as they have told the Committee to-night, what they 'will do as regards workmen's clubs.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the hon. Member is under a very great misapprehension as to the attitude of my hon. Friends. None of us deny that there are a great many working men's clubs, as there are other people's clubs, which are in every respect admirable institutions. Such a club, as the hon. Member described a moment ago, will command the respect, and, I think, if we had the opportunity in our districts, the support of any one amongst, us. We have not the least desire to put down that club, or to put any unduly severe restrictions upon it; but the hon. Member must recollect there are, I do not know whether in his part of the country, but in other parts of the country, institutions masquerading under the name of clubs which are of a totally different character from those of which he spoke.
§ Mr. SUMMERBELLThey ought to be dealt with under separate legislation.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI agree they ought to be dealt with under separate legislation. I think it is due to the fact that clubs vary very much, perhaps according to the district in many cases, that we hear such different accounts of them in this House. One hon. Member comes from a district where there is not a real demand for real clubs, and the genuine clubs are few and far between, though there may be a considerable number of unlicensed drinking shops masquerading under the name of clubs. Another hon. Member comes from a district where there is a need for clubs, and where they meet the wants of the people and have been developed on desirable lines. I do not wish the hon. Member to go away under a misapprehension as to our attitude. I regret, and cannot help regretting, that our licensing laws make it impossible to develop a public-house of the character of the club which the hon. Member described. We refuse by our licensing laws the publican the opportunity of making his house a really fit meeting-place for the working-man with his wife and family for an evening's amusement. We refuse him the opportunity to make it that as well as a mere place where he can get drink or food. The more I think of the subject the more I am sure that much of the evil connected with 1543 our public-house system comes from the restrictions on the entertainment which they can offer, and that we should do more for temperance by a reform which would enable working men and induce them to go not alone but with their families to the place where they spend their evening than by any other single legislative Act. The other observation I have to make is perhaps of a more contentious character, but it is germane to what we are discussing. These institutions, whether bad or good, do directly compete with the public-house. That is the point put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and to it the hon. Member (Mr. Barnard) made no reference. When we were dealing with the public-house the Committee, at the instigation of the Government, proceeded upon the assumption that the public-house has a monopoly, and it has taxed him for that monopoly because it was a monopoly. Yes, but when you have clubs, whether good or bad clubs it does not matter, which compete directly with the public-house and which do the same kind of trade as the public-house, you destroy that monopoly.
§ Mr. C. DUNCAN (Barrow-in-Furness)The public-house is a public concern for the public. The club is not; it is private.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat does not affect my argument. Are they supplying the same class of thing? Are
§ they supplying liquor which otherwise would be supplied by the public-house?
§ Mr. C. DUNCANNot necessarily.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThey are to a very large extent. Does the hon. Member suggest that, if you have not the clubs, there would be so much less drinking, that it would not be in the public-house and would not be done at all? I do not know whether he sees the whole bearing of that argument and where it will lead him? It is an argument that the clubs are promoting the extension of the drink traffic. Speaking of the better class of club, I do not think that is true, but it is true that they are doing the trade which was previously done in the public-house, and the public-house, therefore, has no longer the monopoly that it used to have. Under those circumstances, although you may think it a good thing, and it may be your policy to encourage clubs, it is no longer true to talk of the monopoly of the publican and no longer fair to tax him as if he had a monopoly when you have allowed other people to share his trade.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 105.
1545| Division No. 624.] | AYES. | [7.15. p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Clough, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Agnew, George William | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Harwood, George |
| Alden, Percy | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Hpslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A | Higham, John Sharp |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cowan, W. H. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barker, Sir John | Crossley, William J. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Beale, W. P. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Beauchamp, E. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Benn, W.(Tower Hamlets, St. Geo) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Bethell. Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Duckworth, Sir James | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Bethell, T. R.(Essex, Maldon) | Erskine, David C. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Evans, Sir S. T. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Branch, James | Everett, R. Lacey | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Falconer, J. | Lambert, George |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Findlay, Alexander | Lamont, Norman |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Fullerton, Hugh | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Byles, William Pollard | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Lupton, Arnold |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gulland, John W. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Chaining, Sir Francis Allston | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Maclean, Donald |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hart-Davies, T. | M'Callum, John M. |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rees, J. D. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset. E.) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rendall, Athelstan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Tomkinson, James |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Toulmin, George |
| Massie, J. | Robinson, S. | Verney, F. W. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Walters, John Tudor |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Waring, Walter |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roe, Sir Thomas | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Morse, L. L. | Rowlands, J. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter | Watt, Henry A. |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Myer, Horatio | Seely, Colonel | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Nussey, Sir Willans | Sherwell, Arthur James | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Nuttall, Harry | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wiles, Thomas |
| O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Partington, Oswald | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Soares, Ernest J. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Stanger, H. Y. | Winfrey, R. |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Radford, G. H. | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fell, Arthur | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fletcher, J. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Foster, P. S. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gardner, Ernest | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hamilton, Marquess of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Renton, Leslie |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Renwick, George |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Healy. Timothy Michael | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Heaton, John Henniker | Salter, Arthur Claveil |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Helmsley, Viscount | Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hill, Sir Clement | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Stanier, Beville |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hudson, Walter | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cecil, Lord R (Marylebone, E.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Summerbell, T. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kerry, Earl of | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Keswick, William | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dubiln, S.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Crooks, William | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Moore, William | Winterton, Earl |
| Doughty, Sir George | Morpeth, Viscount | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Younger, George |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
§ Question, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question put, "That 'six' be there inserted."
1546§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 42.
1547| Division No. 625.] | AYES. | [7.25 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Beauchamp, E. |
| Agnew, George William | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) |
| Alden, Percy | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) |
| Alien, Charles P. (Stroud) | Barker, Sir John | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Barnard, E. B. | Boulton, A. C. F. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Branch, James |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Beale, W. P. | Brodie, M, C. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hen. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rees, J. D. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Higham, John Sharp | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Jardine, Sir J. | Robinson, S. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Cleland, J. W. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Clough, William | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Laidlaw, Robert | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Lambert, George | Seely, Colonel |
| Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lamont, Norman | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Corbett. C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cowan, W. H. | Lewis, John Herbert | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lupton, Arnold | Stanier, Beville |
| Crossley, William J. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Dickinson, w. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Maclean, Donald | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | M'Callum, John M. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | M'Micking, Major G. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset. E.) |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Maddison, Frederick | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Erskine, David C. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Tomkinson, James |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Toulmin, George |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Massie, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Falconer, J. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Micklem, Nathaniel | Walters, John Tudor |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Waring, Walter |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Moore, William | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Morse, L. L. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Gulland, John W. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Myer, Horatio | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendalc) | Newdegate, F. A. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Nussey, Sir Willans | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Nuttall, Harry | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Harwood, George | Partington, Oswald | Winfrey, R. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | |
| Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Healy, Timothy Michael | Raphael, Herbert H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Hudson. Walter | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Jowett, F. W. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Summerbell, T. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Keswick, William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kimber, Sir Henry | Walsh, Stephen |
| Clyde, J. Avon | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Crooks, William | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Morpeth, Viscount | Winterton, Earl |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Radford, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Rowlands, J. | C. Duncan and Mr. W. Tyson Wilson. |
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment made, in Subjection (1), to leave out the word "receipts" ["for every pound of the receipts"] and to insert the word "purchases."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
1548§ Mr. ROWLAND HUNTmoved to leave out Sub-section (2).
The reason I want to leave this Subsection out is, that I think it will be very hard upon the secretaries of working 1549 men's clubs that they should be liable to such very heavy fines. Some of them are not very well educated, and if they make a mistake it will be quite easy to understand why it is. I think they are fined under this Sub-section very heavily, and certainly more heavily than ought to be the case.
The CHAIRMANAs there are Amendments dealing with the amount, I would suggest that it would be better to take the discussion upon them rather than on a motion to leave out the Sub-section.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDmoved, in Subjection (2), after the word "club" ["If the secretary of a club"], to insert the word "wilfully."
This Subjection provides that if a secretary of a club fails to deliver a statement in accordance with it within a stipulated time, and he may not have taken the precaution of applying for an extension, then he is to become liable, on summary conviction before the magistrates, to both imprisonment and fine. He can be fined in a sum not exceeding £50, or be sent to three months' imprisonment, or be both fined and imprisoned. In a previous clause in this same Bill we bad an exactly analogous case, and the Government were good enough to accept the word "wilfully" or "knowingly," and it is a matter of indifference which, as a qualifying word. This punishment is inflicted merely with regard to the failure to send in a statement, and I do suggest that to make the secretary of some clubs liable to these penalties is undesirable. Of course there are clubs which have plenty of means, and they have secretaries who have a good education, and they can employ people and are able to pay them salaries to attend to this business, but there are in this country a considerable number of clubs who cannot afford to pay for skilled assistance. My point, therefore, Is that we ought not to enforce a penal clause and make a man responsible, who happens to occupy the position of the secretary of a club, for a fine of £50, or three months' imprisonment, unless he wilfully omits to send in a statement. If he wilfully omits to do so, of course he ought to be liable for a substantial penalty, but in the case of those who do not act wilfully, I do not think this very heavy penalty should be put upon the Statute Book, and, as the Government have previously allowed such a word to be 1550 inserted, I now propose this Amendment in order to mitigate the severity of the penalty.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThere are two matters dealt with in this Sub-section. The first is omission to make a return altogether, and the next is to make a return which is untrue in a material particular. It must be borne in mind that there are two things. I am dealing now with the omission, because that is the part of the Sub-section in which the Amendment will come in. The amount depending upon this return to the revenue is a very considerable sum, and we must either do one of two things. We must either make it compulsory upon the secretary of a club to make a return which would enable the revenue to be collected, or else we must allow the fullest possible right of entry to the Excise officers into the premises of the club. This latter power was not one which was desired by both sides of the House, and we had some experience of that last year. I therefore think we ought not to insert the word "wilfully" here at all, but when we come to the second part of the Section, which deals with the making of a return which is false in any particular, it is a very different matter, and I shall be disposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) and to insert the word "knowingly." I do not know what the precedents are; I have not got them in my mind, but I am told the hon. Member was not quite accurate in saying that the word "wilfully" was inserted. The word "knowingly" was. There is a precedent here to which I would call his attention, in the Act of 1902, in the portion dealing with clubs. It says, "If the secretary of any registered club, or any Club which is required to be registered, omits to make any return required by this Act, he shall be liable, on summary conviction. to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding £50, or both." That is a case which is exactly in point. He is there required to make returns of various kinds, and the Committee will see that the word "wilfully" does not occur there at all, land I think the omission to make a return ought to be punished very severely. There are many clubs which are not of a very respectable character, not clubs in the higher walk of life, nor bonâ fide clubs, and it is 1551 very important if these clubs do sell intoxicating liquors to any extent that we should have recourse to remedies of this kind. I am not now on the exact amount, and there is not much difference between the penalty we are going to impose here and the penalty imposed under the Act of 1902. In either case the penalty is only a maximum one, and it is a matter for the justices whether they inflict the fine or imprisonment or not. Therefore, in regard to this particular Amendment, I have to say that in the interests of the Revenue, and in strict conformity with the Act of 1902, I must give a negative to it.
§ Lord BALCARRESIt is not quite in conformity with the Act of 1902, because in this case it is for a first, and in that case it is for the second offence, that imprisonment is given. The chief objection which my hon. Friend takes to this Sub-section is, firstly, that the penalty is equal in the case of both classes of offence, and then ha wishes to put in the word "wilfully" or knowingly before any offence can be committed. We ought to differentiate on this subject between the two offences. If a man fails, whether wilfully or not, whether by accident or not, to send in a return, he is, as the Clause stands now, liable to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. I think that is an excessive punishment. There are two offences, and there is one maximum for both offences. If he returns a fraudulent statement to the Exchequer, and by doing that defrauds the Exchequer of money, it is no doubt arguable that three months' hard labour is not a very great penalty.
The CHAIRMANThis is a question whether the word "wilfully" is to be put in. The question of what penalty should be inflicted arises on a subsequent Amendment.
§ Lord BALCARRESI quite appreciate that, but by putting in the word "lawfully" we shall at any rate protect the secretary of the club from a too drastic penalty for what may after all be a perfectly venial offence. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he objects to the word "wilfully," will accept "knowingly" in this connection.
§ Sir EDWIN CORNWALLI think to an expert with a legal mind this Clause would not appear very drastic because he would read into it the practice of the law, and, as he would understand it, in very few cases would it be put into practice, and 1552 if it was this is a maximum penalty. I should like the Solicitor-General to bear in mind that this is a Clause which the working man has to carry out. He reads this not with a trained mind, and he says this is a very heavy penalty to put upon a working man. A return must be made in January, or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow. That, of course, means that the secretary will be duly warned by the Commissioners, and that he will be given time. This secretary of the working men's club does not read over the various clauses, and to my mind this would strike him as very harsh and drastic in the form in which it now appears in the Clause. I have been wondering whether it would meet the difficulty at all, if, seeing that the Commissioners would have to give notice and give time, the word "refuses" should be substituted for the word "fails." He would understand that a very heavy penalty might fall upon him if he refused to make a return, and it might be rather harsh and drastic if he failed to make a return.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite appreciated the legal position because the Commissioners would not have to give any such notice. It is true the Commissioners may order such further time, but they need not, and the unfortunate secretary is in the position of being liable to a savage penalty if on 1st February, without any notice, he has not made a return.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSIt is the same as the Act of 1902.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think it is. I understand the penalty of imprisonment is for the second offence.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI was not talking of the amount of the penalty. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the figures being given on a particular date. That is the same as in the Act of 1902.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, it is not the same. The whole difference is in the penalty. If a man fails to carry out a certain duty and the penalty for such failure is 40s., that does not matter particularly. You need not necessarily put in the word "knowingly," but if the penalty is fine plus imprisonment you have no right to leave it to an accidental omission. It is all very well to say the magistrates would not inflict it; there is the penalty, which could be put in force.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI cannot accept "wilfully" here at all. But I will accept "knowingly" in the second part, and I will recast this Sub-section in order to make it correspond exactly with the section of the Act of 1902.
§ Mr. REMNANTMay I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to Clause 9 of this Bill, Sub-section (3), where we had a similar case, and the Government agreed to accept the word "knowingly" there? The word would apply equally here, and would meet the case. I understand the Solicitor-General agrees to do that. But would it not be clearer, and would it not meet the hon. Gentleman who spoke on the other side, if we put in after "fails" the words "after due notice," because after all there is no reason why a club should not be served with notice.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think we ought to be obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has promptly met what is undoubtedly a very serious difficulty. We are not legislating for the clubs in Pall Mall altogether. If we impose any duties upon these clubs, they must and they would carry them out within the time. But we have to deal with a very considerable number of clubs which have no paid servants as secretaries at all, and whose secretaries in nine cases out of ten are members of the clubs, and they are more or less able to prepare the statement and send it in. To suggest that one of these men, whose attention has not been specifically called to the matter by receiving a notice, should be liable on 1st February to hard labour, or a £50 fine is, of course, a very savage penalty. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to accept the word "knowingly," I hope in both sections of these words, for failure to deliver the statement, and for making a statement that is untrue, and to put in the words of the Act of 1902, it would satisfy us all as being a very reasonable solution of this difficulty; and, if I understand that is the offer which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, I would ask leave to withdraw. But if there is any doubt about that being the offer, we should have to insist upon this Amendment, or something similar to it—either the word "wilfully" or the word "knowingly." When we come to the word "knowingly," we shall be quite willing to accept the penalty of the Act of 1902. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will 1554 accept the word "knowingly" or whether he refuses, because our attitude in regard to the matter will depend on his reply?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSWe cannot accept the word here at all. There is no reason why the penalty should be less severe here than in the Act of 1902. If anything, there is some reason why it should be more severe. I am willing to follow exactly the reference to both classes of offence, namely, omission or failure to return, or sending a return which is false in any material particular.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI am sorry that is not satisfactory.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONIn Clause 16, where the owner of land is required to make returns, if he fails to make a return, he shall be liable to a penalty under Section 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1842. So, in the same way, under Clause 20, where any person who pays rent is bound to make a return to the Commissioners if asked, and even there, if he fails after he has been asked to comply with the provisions, he is to be subject to the penalties of the Income Tax Act. The penalty is thus expressed: "If any person who is by this Act to deliver any list, declaration, or statement as aforesaid shall refuse or neglect to do so, or shall under any pretence wilfully delay the delivery thereof, he shall be liable," etc. The penalty is only to be £20 and treble the duty. There is no imprisonment. The hon. and learned Gentleman might consider the analogy taken from this very Bill itself, and not from the Act of 1902. The same word here would come in with much greater force and justification.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. RENWICKI hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will meet us in regard to this matter. It is much more serious than probably many Members think it is. I have to do with certain working men's political clubs, and one of the greatest difficulties we have is to get respectable men to accept the position of secretary. There is a large amount of work and there is no pay. If we do not meet this in some way, it will be utterly impossible to get a respectable man, whom we cannot afford to give a salary, to accept a position involving such great responsibility. I suggest that we might insert some words to this effect, that after having received notice that he has neglected to send in a return he shall be liable to a penalty. But we cannot, if we are to maintain the respect- 1555 ability of the club, as we are all anxious to do, allow the Clause to remain as it is at the present time. Everyone knows the efforts which are made by the owners of licensed premises to get a respectable tenant. The position is rather different there. He either shares in the profit or gets the whole of it. Here is a case where the unfortunate secretary, who accepts all the responsibilities and does all the work, is not going to get anything for it, and, in addition, has to have these heavy penalties. There is another point to which I would call attention, speaking from the point of view of the justices. I maintain that if the justices were to see that the Government considered this such a serious offence as to require such penalties as are set out in the section, they would be almost certain to inflict a severe penalty in cases of this description. I think that is an additional reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman should meet us fairly and equitably in this matter.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI would point out to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) that his argument falls to the ground in one respect. He says that clubs are almost unable to get respectable men to undertake honorary secretaryships, and that if the provisions of this Bill were to become law, it will be impossible to obtain such men. Clubs are now liable to precisely the penalties which we propose to make them liable for in the Sub-section as amended. A secretary is required at present to make certain returns as to the number of members and other details under the Act of 1902, and if he omits to make any returns—the word "knowingly" is not used in the statute—he is liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £20, and for the second and subsequent offences he is liable to a term of imprisonment. We propose to remodel this Clause so as to make it absolutely identical with the Section in the Act of 1902. If there is any difficulty in getting a secretary for a club now, what is here proposed will not make the difficulty greater in future. Under the second part of the Sub-section if a man makes a false return for the purpose of defrauding the Revenue, he will be liable to the same penalty as under the Act of 1902. Therefore, I think my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Samuel Evans) has fairly met the case put by the hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members must remember that there are a certain 1556 number of clubs which are really drinking clubs. We would have suppressed them under the Bill of last year if we had been allowed to pass it into law. We cannot suppress them with the existing powers, because the Act of 1902 does not give powers to suppress them. There are from 50 to 70 of them suppressed each year for various reasons, but a considerable number of drinking clubs still survive. They are not very much better than shebeens.
§ Sir E. CARSONI cannot understand why the Government object to put in the word "knowingly." The late Lord Advocate (Mr. Scott Dickson) has pointed out that even under the Income Tax Act of 1842, which is much more analogous to the-present case than the Registration of Clubs Act of 1902, the offence arises when the failure to make a return is done wilfully. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy mean to lay down here that a man who by inadvertence forgets at the right moment to make a return of those purchases ought to be liable to prosecution? I really cannot understand why the Solicitor-General—whose urbanity in these discussions we so willingly acknowledge—can think it worth his while to hold out on the point whether a man is to be convicted for an inadvertence or for having "knowingly" failed to carry out what the Act requires. There has been an able argument submitted by the late Lord Advocate that the failure to make the returns under other parts of this Bill by "dukes and blackmailers" does not involve such penalties. Surely if the secretaries of clubs omit to make returns they should receive as much consideration as you give to dukes and blackmailers It really would be worth while to consider them when you are making these class distinctions and putting secretaries of working men's clubs in a lower grade than blackmailers or dukes. If a man is purposely evading an Act of Parliament you ought certainly to punish him, but if he is guilty of inadvertence in a matter which can be remedied—because you can always get these returns—I say you ought not to punish him. If the Solicitor-General will agree to insert the word "knowingly" we will be quite satisfied.
§ Mr. F. MADDISONI think we ought to be very careful how we deal with a question of this sort. While it is true that the great majority of club secretaries will have no difficulty in making the returns, there are small clubs where the secretaries are only poor men, and they Inlay inadvertently fail to send in the return 1557 The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) has stated that it is almost impossible to get a respectable man to act as a secretary of a Tory club. I did not think it was so bad as that; still, the hon. Member knows his own party better than I do, and I take his word for it. What I say is that it is important that you should have these returns, and the sort of man that we all want to protect is the man who cannot be got to understand that he has to do a certain thing by a certain time. The real protection for such a man is to have a notice sent to him stating plainly that he has a certain thing to do. I gather from the Section that there is no statutory obligation on the Commissioners to send any such notice. If the Solicitor-General could possibly give us an assurance that on the Report stage he would introduce words providing for such a statutory obligation on the part of the Commissioners, then the most ignorant of men would have no trouble at all. I certainly think that would protect the sort of man who is liable to make the omission from no desire whatever to defraud the revenue. I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool. There are a number of men, I hope a decreasing number, who do, if I may use the term, get "mixed" and flurried, and if they were secretaries of small clubs the imposition of such penalties as are provided for under the Act of 1902 would be a very serious thing.
§ Mr. G. D. FABER (York)I cannot imagine why the Government do not accept the Amendment. The Solicitor-General proposes to remodel the Clause in accordance with the provisions in the Act of 1902. I agree that the word "knowingly" is not in that Act, but I would point out that it is not a taxing Act. It is an Act for the regulation of clubs. The late Lord Advocate (Mr. Scott Dickson) has called attention to the true precedent in the Income Tax Act of 1842, where the words "knowingly" and "wilfully" occur. We must not forget that this is an entirely new matter. Secretaries of clubs have never been called upon to do anything of this kind before. In the large West End clubs there are men of high education and paid servants to attend to the making of these returns, but the case is different in regard to small working men's clubs. I have half a dozen of them in my own Constituency. The secretaries perform the duties of their offices almost gratuitously. They are not 1558 skilled in accounts, and at the end of this year, within a month, they are to be called on to make this entirely novel return. If the secretary fails to make a return he is subject to a grave penalty, not so serious as in the Clause as it stands, but still a serious penalty if you are going to adopt the procedure of the Act of 1902. The Government having gone three-quarters of the way should now go the remainder of the way, and put the matter on a fairer, a juster, and a surer basis. There will be a great deal of dissatisfaction in workmen's clubs throughout the country, especially in the smaller clubs, if the Government do not conform to this request; and in addition great injustice will done.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI wish to point out that the secretaries of these clubs very often are sent away from the town in which the club is for a month or two months, as the case may be, to work in other parts of the country, and a secretary is put in for the time being who knows practically nothing whatever of what is required of a secretary. In such, a case it would be extremely hard if the real secretary was prosecuted. I quite admit that it might be a dangerous thing to adopt the words "wilfully" or "knowingly," because you would find that nobody would wilfully and knowingly omit to send in the returns. At the same time I think that the Government ought to promise that no prosecution will take place until the secretary who has not sent in a statement has been notified to this effect.
§ Mr. G. A. GIBBSIf the secretary of a club fails to deliver the necessary statement there must be some reason, and it will probably be that he does not know about the internal arrangements of the club. If he does happen to omit the return knowingly the fact of putting "knowingly" in the Bill will make him liable to the penalty. I would, therefore, ask the Government to reconsider this question.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELAnother reason why the secretary may fail to send in a return is because he deliberately does not want to pay the tax. Cases may sometimes happen, and how are you to prove that it is a case of that kind and net a case of casual neglect? There is one consideration which was not present to the mind of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison), and that is that these returns must be in such a form and 1559 contain such particulars as may be described by the Commissioners. That involves that the Commissioners will send out the forms as they send the forms for other taxes, and I give an assurance that, as a matter of fact, these forms will be sent.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDTo get over the whole difficulty, I would suggest that the Government consent, after the word "fail," to put in the words "after receiving notice from the Commissioners," and as the Solicitor-General has already said he would accept the word "knowingly" in the second part of the offence—"in any material particular untrue "—and further agreed to substitute for the penalty the Clause in the 1902 Act, there I think we should be all satisfied with regard to this Clause. But at the present moment we are stuck on the Amendment proposed to insert the word "wilfully," and I should ask permission if we have to go to a Division upon this to withdraw the word "wilfully" and propose in its place the word "knowingly," because it is that word really which we have been discussing, and the word "knowingly" involves a notice if a man has received a notice and does not comply with it then he has knowingly failed because he has got notice. All we want to do in this matter is to do what we consider to be right with regard to this Clause. We will not argue this from a political point of view. There is nothing of that in it. But we are face to face with a penalty Clause. We ought not to make a lot of these poor people responsible under these penalties in a savage or ill-considered manner. It seems to me the most reasonable thing in the world either to put in the word "knowingly" or, as suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley—and I think he means exactly what we mean—"after receiving notice from the Commissioners." It has been pointed out that in the first part of this Sub-section there is to be a prescribed form. Let that form be sent to each club on the register, with an intimation on the back of it that the return has got to be in by a certain date or otherwise there will be a penalty. Let that be addressed to the secretary, probably by a registered letter or in a proper manner. If that is going to be done the Government should not object to insert the words "after receiving notice from the Commissioners." We feel very anxious on this point. We know there is a large number of clubs which are 1560 placed in a difficulty. I may say at once that this does not apply to workmen's Conservative clubs in Liverpool. They are all teetotal clubs, but there is a number of respectable workmen's clubs that are not teetotal, and we have no right to impose on these people, who have done the duties of secretary without pay or reward, penalties of this savage description which will prevent these respectable men from taking the position of secretary. We have made a very reasonable demand and a very reasonable offer to the Government, and I shall be very sorry to go in the Division Lobby about it. We will meet the Government in any reasonable way in regard to this Clause. The alternative I suggest is that they might agree to put in the words "after receiving notice from the Commissioners," or "after the prescribed form had been sent to the club," or any equivalent words of that sort. If the Government will not accept that suggestion, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment with regard to the word "willfully" and be allowed to propose the word "knowingly," and then I think we shall go to a Division.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThere is really no difference of intention between us and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and we are apparently splitting hairs. I have already said that as a matter of fact these people will receive notice every year.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIt is not in the Bill.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is implied by the words in the Bill. They are required to give information "in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Commissioners." The reason why it was not inserted in the Bill in terms was that such a notice might be used as a precedent in the case of other taxing Acts, such as the Income Tax Act. The point is really comparatively a small one, and this case is sufficiently distinguished from the Income Tax case, because the people are all registered. There is a register of these clubs and of their secretaries, so that they are all known, and I do not think that if words were put in here requiring notice to be given that they could really be used effectively as a precedent in other cases. As a matter of fact, there is no precedent in any Act requiring notice to be served in circumstances such as these, but I do not think that need necessarily bind this Committee. Therefore I accept the suggestion of the 1561 hon. Member that the Clause should state explicitly what it already states explicity. It might, however, be more convenient to put the necessary words in the first Sub-section rather than in the second Sub-section, as a matter of drafting. Perhaps for that reason it would be better if the words were more carefully considered, and I will give an undertaking that on the Report stage words to the effect that notice shall be served shall be inserted.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think we ought to accept at once the frank and kindly offer which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Of course, I can see that the proper place would be in the first Subsection, which we have already passed, and therefore, after the promise which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThere is no time like the present, and, having used the interval since the matter was under discussion to consider the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I propose, therefore, to move to leave out the word "or" ["or if he delivers a statement"], and to insert the words "he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to imprisonment without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both, and."
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI want to enter a mild protest against this proposal. I think it would be perfectly impossible for a secretary of a workman's club to meet all these requirements. He may receive his notice, he may go into all the figures, he may fill up his return, making it all right, but he may leave it in the parlour on the mantel-piece, and his wife may light the fire with it next morning. Should the unfortunate man be convicted and made liable to this fine in such circumstances? I think the word "wilfully" ought to be kept in.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI thought the hon. and learned Gentleman undertook to put in the word "knowingly."
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThat will come later.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERAs this is my Amendment, I may be allowed to say that 1562 what is proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman only differs from mine by the-insertion of the words "without hard labour."
§ Question, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Clause, put, and negatived.
§ Amendments made: After the word "he" ["he delivers a statement"], to insert the word "knowingly."—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
§ Leave out Sub-section (3)—[Sir Samuel Evans.]
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERmoved, in Subsection (4), after the word "distress" ("the duty may be levied by distress"], to insert the words "on any goods being the property of the club found."
This Amendment relates to the right of distress which is given by this Bill in the case of clubs. I am not prepared to contest the necessity of some such provision. The object of the Amendment is to limit the distress to the-property of the club. Unless such words are inserted, under the ordinary common law of distraint there is the right to take whatever is there, whoever it belongs to. It is an exceedingly drastic right, and unless some such words are put in the Treasury officers could take the hats, coats, and umbrellas not merely of members, but of their guests or visitors—indeed, any persons' property which for any reason whatever is on the premises of the club. I do suggest that if this drastic power is to be given it should be limited to the property of the club, and I hope that the Committee will see that the Amendment is a reasonable one.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThere is no precedent for this Amendment. We have not now in mind the perfectly respectable club but those clubs which are furnished, not by the members, but by people who may be described as really the proprietors. In the case of such a club, when these taxes are being incurred under this Act of Parliament, there is no reason why the distraint should not apply to all the goods. Therefore I am afraid that the Government must refuse this Amendment.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIt seems to me this should be dealt with by some central authority.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThat is done is the Clause.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYLet us take the case of a hasty man, or a man of different political leanings from that of a club in the district in which he served as collector. I think we might have some information as to who is to be the collector and to issue this warrant.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWe have been passing heaps of duties under this Bill, and if they are not paid the Revenue Authorities have to proceed against those who are liable to pay. Here, because it is a working men's club, no proceedings whatever are to be taken, and no notice is to be given. It may be that by inadvertence the duty is not paid, and one evening the members may come down and find the collector in possession, and all the goods to be sold. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary provision in any taxing statute. I venture to suggest that the Clause should not merely be modified, as suggested, but that there is no reason or right whatever why this extraordinary power of distress should be placed in the hands of the Government for this particular tax, and this tax alone. Large numbers of people are gradually coming to the opinion that the landlord's right of distress is not desirable in the interests of the community. From the other side we frequently hear that urged that the landlord ought to have the same remedy as any other person. Yet the party that is opposed to the landlord's right of distress are introducing this power of distress into this particular Clause only.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)We passed the word "distress," and the Amendment is "on any goods being the property of the club found."
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWould it be possible after disposing of this Amendment to propose an Amendment to the effect "after proceedings taken before a magistrate."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANYes.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI hope when we come to that point there will be a suggestion that some sort of proceedings at all events should be taken to recover the duty. The Amendment is to insert the words, "on any goods, being the property of the club, found." I am bound to say quite candidly and frankly I cannot see how this Amendment can possibly be accepted, because we all know that in the great majority of clubs the furniture and 1564 other things in the club do not belong to the club at all. There is mostly a limited company, and in a very large number of cases the club, as a club, own nothing at all on the premises. In other cases there are proprietary clubs of all sorts and descriptions, and it would be a very stupid position for the Inland Revenue authorities to find themselves in that their only practical remedy was against the furniture of the club, and to find when they got there that there was not a single stick they could touch. Therefore I do not think, in the shape the Amendment is proposed, that it could be seriously pressed to a Division. I am afraid I really cannot see anything very much in favour of it. The other point which has been referred to, and which I think you rightly held to be out of Order now, as to whether the power of distress should not come after the taking out of a summons, is, I think, a very serious one.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmoved, in Subsection (4), after the word "distress" ["may be levied by distress"] to insert the words, "after proceedings taken before a court of summary jurisdiction."
I desire to have some words inserted which will impose on the Crown the duty of taking some kind of proceedings before they come down in the way proposed. I have never heard of the Crown or anybody whatever having such a right. In every other case where the duty is not paid provision is made that proceedings shall be taken before the distress can take place. Whether it is a working men's club or any other club, I do not see why in should be put in a different position from an ordinary individual. The authorities should proceed in exactly the same way as local authorities have to do in regard to rates. Proceedings have to be taken before a court of summary jurisdiction, the magistrates then make an order, and the man in default has an opportunity of explaining why he has not paid. Surely a club should not be treated worse than an individual. I hope the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment or one similar to it, so that it will be necessary, before a bailiff goes into a club, at lease to give the club some notice and an opportunity of explaining why it has not paid.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe hon. Member has made a speech without being able 1565 to look into the matter, and the less the has looked into the matter the more positive he is in making his statement. So far from its being the case that there are no precedents for this proposal, it is common form in Excise Acts. I have not them all here, but I have looked at the Inland Revenue Act of 1880, and there Section 17, Sub-section (1), provides that if any duty payable by a brewer remains unpaid after the time within which it is payable the collector may by warrant signed by him empower any person to distrain upon the beer, malt, or other materials for brewing or utensils belonging to the brewer, and so forth, and sell the same by public auction. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise some kind of similarity?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIt is quite a different thing.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWe all know that for the purposes of Income Tax and of Customs and Excise the authorities have very wide powers; but the case with which we are now dealing is rather an exceptional one. You are imposing upon clubs a new duty in the nature of an annual payment almost in the same category as rates. For a good many years I have been a member of the Finance Committee of the city of Liverpool, and regularly before that committee, especially at certain times of the year, there comes a list of people who are in arrear with their rates. We then have to decide whether they shall be summoned or allowed time or permitted to pay by instalments. Rates are a serious burden to a considerable number of people, and there is no doubt that the new duty will be a serious matter to a considerable number of clubs. I think the Government might look upon this matter in a somewhat similar way to that adopted by urban authorities in the matter of rates. I can understand that the Commissioners, who would have the onus of collecting these duties, would in many cases where it was-pointed out that the sum was rather heavy and that a little time was wanted, probably give time to pay. After all, in the collection of taxes, as in the collection of rates, it does not do to be too arbitrary. To leave this particular duty in the same category as that to which the Solicitor-General referred, is not quite fair, because in the case of the brewer he and his predecessors before him have known perhaps for generations that they have to pay the duty in respect of the beer they 1566 brew. It is common knowledge to everybody who has to pay Excise and Customs Duties that they have to make these payments, and they make them at a time when they are able to do so, having regard to the commodities with which they are dealing. But here you have a new tax imposed upon clubs, and it is a reasonable suggestion that they should be treated as considerately as a local authority treats its citizens in respect of rates. The procedure suggested has the additional advantage that in regard to rates, and I am sure it would be the same in regard to clubs, on the hearing of the summons in nine cases out of ten the person concerned finds means to pay the duty and costs, and thus saves the distress. It is a serious matter to put the bailiffs into a club. There ought to be some reasonable opportunity for explanation and payment allowed, such as is afforded by the issue of a summons. If the Amendment is not accepted I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
§ Mr. JOHN GRETTONThere is great force in what my hon. Friend has said. The case of clubs is very different from the case of those who have been habituated by long custom to the Excise laws. There have been long interviews between the representatives of clubs and Members of the Government, and I should like to ask whether it has been clearly represented to those who put forward the case of the clubs that clubs were subjecting themselves to the risk of these very onerous penalties if they agreed to these duties being placed upon them. Are clubs thoroughly aware of what an infringement of the regulations in this Bill will entail upon them and their Members? This occurs to me to be an entirely new case. The Amendment now under the consideration of the Committee is, I think, a reasonable and just one, framed with a view of the mitigation of the penalty. I am sure these people will require to be warned of what is impending under these new and stringent regulations.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am very ready, as hon. Members know, to meet them as much as possible, but this Amendment is one which the Government cannot possibly accept. We should be departing from every precedent that has been set by Parliament, both in past times and in more recent years, if we were to accept an Amendment of this character. I sincerely hope that hon. Members opposite will not seek to press it. We accepted their last 1567 Amendments because they made out an effective case for them. No respectable club would refuse to pay this duty to which it is liable. Distraint would only be taken by the Department of Excise in the very last resort. You cannot imagine the Customs and Excise, because the duty happens to be a day or two in arrear, going in and seizing the property of the club. We have been getting along very amicably this evening, but I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am exceedingly sorry for the terms that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General thought fit to adopt with regard to myself. I certainly did not intend to willfully mislead the Committee—
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSI did not suggest that. What I complained of was that the hon. and learned Member quoted an Act that did not apply.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Solicitor-General is very kind to bring against me a charge of wilful ignorance or of unwilful ignorance. When he referred to the Act of Parliament relating to brewers I knew enough about it to know that he was as equally ignorant as he suggested I was. I have now got the Act of Parliament, and I find that the power to distrain upon the brewer for non-payment of his duty under the Act of 1880, Section 17, is a totally different power to the power which is given to the Revenue under the provisions of this Bill. Under the Act of 1880 distraint may be made upon, "all beer, malt,…vessels, utensils, …or on his furniture."
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSGo on.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS"Or any premises in the use or possession of the brewer, or in possession on his behalf…by warrant." That is not nearly so wide a power as the power of distress given by this Ball. And the brewer is a man who may be expected to know the law, and know what the duties payable are. That is not so nearly wide a Section as the Clause which the Government propose in this Bill. When the Solicitor-General casts an aspersion upon my legal knowledge, wilfully or not, all I do venture to suggest to him is that he did put before the Committee the Section, and stated it was on "all fours," and that it is not on "all fours" with the provisions of 1568 this Bill. The power of distraint in this Bill is a far wider power. It refers to all property found in the club, to every kind and every description of property belonging to the club, a member, or a stranger. All can be distrained upon and taken away under the provisions of this Clause.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIt might be well to consider what are the duties of a club secretary. He has to submit in the month of January a statement, and it is certain—human nature being what it is—that he will not furnish it at an earlier date, but will take his time about it. Therefore, he will furnish that statement at the end of January. That statement will go to the Commissioners. He will not know whether that statement is accepted till perhaps the end of February, for it has to be considered by the Commissioners. Obviously, the duty cannot be paid by that club secretary until he knows that the Commissioners have accepted his statement. If there has been any misunderstanding in the correspondence or inadvertence, it is very likely the duty will not be paid until March. What happens in March? We know very well that the Inland Revenue always tighten up the screw in March, so as to get all the revenue they can by the end of March, in view of the end of the financial year. The upshot of it is that the club secretary may. be come down upon on 1st March and have the bailiff put in, whereas at that time really he will not know about having done anything wrong whatever, and will indeed, have no desire to evade payment of the tax. But the time is very short, for all these negotiations. I say that that secretary ought to have notice as to the exact period of time within which the tax is to be paid. There is no provision whatever in this Subsection for that, and the result may be that the secretary will find he is distrained upon really when he has no wish to evade payment of the tax. In the case of working men's clubs there is an additional hardship, because as a matter of fact the control over the secretary is rather slight in these cases, from the necessity of the case. They have no efficient control over their secretary, and the secretary has consequently a free hand. It is surely very hard lines that the club should suffer from the default of the secretary, whet0her through the wilful disturbance, or wilful evasion, or whether by simple carelessness. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that some formal steps should be taken before distrain takes place such as my hon. and 1569 learned Friend has suggested. If the procedure suggested be adopted, and if the summons is taken out, then it will become known, and the whole body of members will take care that the duty is paid. Otherwise they may find the bailiffs in possession. Even if they pay then they find themselves involved in something which casts a stigma on the club that ought to have been avoided. Therefore, I suggest that some official notice should be given, and if the Government do not find some better words I think my hon. Friend should adhere to the Amendment.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI am in somewhat of a difficulty. I belong to those old-fashioned people who try to pay their 'debts, and having not very great sympathy with the people who do not pay their debts. It is rather an incongruous state of affairs to find protests coming from the Conservative Benches and not from the Liberal and Radical Benches against this power of distraint. What is the ordinary power of a private person who has recovered judgment against another particular person? He can seize the goods of the debtor, and the goods of the debtor only. That is the ordinary power which every subject has.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSWhat is the power of the landlord?
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThere is the exceptional power which is given to the landlord to distrain or take the goods of other people who happen to be on the premises in respect of which the debt is due. The Solicitor-General reminded me of that power, but that is the power which has often been spoken against in this House from the Benches opposite, and last year a Bill was brought in with the object of whittling down the power of the landlord, and we heard speech after speech about the injustice which was alleged to have been caused by the seizing of one people's goods for another's debts. That is what the Government propose to do in this Clause, if the club has not paid its duty before the end of March. The Government give power to the local collector to issue a warrant of distress and to seize any goods he can find in the club. He has power to issue this warrant without any demand, and to seize the goods not only of the club, but of anyone on the premises. For instance, he could seize the goods of the caretaker. I think that is giving an extremely large power to the person to whom the money is owing. The Solicitor- 1570 General and the Chancellor of Duchy said we cannot accept this Amendment because it would be flying in the face of all precedent. I was amazed to hear that. The Amendment is to provide that the proceedings should be taken before a magistrate before the distress can be put in. What is the case of the Income Tax? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that if he did not pay his Income Tax after he had made his return that the local collector has power to put in a bailiff into his house in the West End of London without any further demand, and if not, is not that a perfectly good precedent? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman referred to when he talked of precedent.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Excise laws.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIs there any difference between Excise and Income Tax? The limits are made in one case as well as in the other. The Solicitor-General said there were a large number of precedents I am not so familiar as he is with Government statutes, but I am bound to admit I know no such precedents. The one he has referred to is a perfectly well-known precedent, but it is certainly no precedent for this. He quoted from the exceptional power given in dealing with brewers. I will tell the Committee what the power is. Under the statute to which the Solicitor-General referred when the brewer has not paid his duty, the collector can issue a warrant and seize the brewing utensils. There is now no power given to seize other people's goods. The landlord's power is not given in that case. There is no power to seize the hat or cloak of anyone on the brewery. That is no precedent for distress, and further than that the precedent which the Solicitor-General gave was not even a precedent for distraining the brewers' goods, because there is no sort of power to distrain the goods of the brewery other than the utensils of the brewery.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe hon. Member has not got the section before him. It is not only the brewers' utensils that can be seized, but the materials.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe power which the sub-section gives is to distrain upon the goods of the brewer which he uses in. connection with the brewery trade. The words are beer, vessels, and utensils. There is no power to seize the private goods of the brewer, and further than that 1571 there is not power to seize all the goods used in connection with the brewery. For instance, there is no power to seize the horses and carts. The power of distraint is on the malt and other materials, and the vessels and utensils belonging to the brewery. That is not the precedent for giving full powers of distress which this Section gives: power not only to seize the goods of the club, but the goods of anybody else who happened to be upon the club, whether he be caretaker or otherwise. The Solicitor-General said there were other precedents, but I am not aware of them, but if there are precedents, and they are not more to the point than the one he has given, I am very much inclined to join my friends in objecting to the powers given under this Clause. I am very strongly in favour of the speedy recovery of debts, and of giving a very wide power of distress to persons to whom debts are due, but power in this Clause is stronger than we are accustomed to in this country.
§ Mr. MARKHAMI am not quite clear what is the meaning of these words. I would like to put this case to the Solicitor-General. There is a club in Yorkshire rented at £250 a year, but the furniture does not belong to the club. In the event of the members not paying the Excise Duty, could the furniture be seized on those premises, although it does not belong to the members, and was, in fact, a free gift?
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSCertainly.
§ Mr. MARKHAMWhat objection is there to accepting the words of the hon. Member for Basingstoke?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI am afraid I must press my point. When is the secretary to be told how and when he has to pay this duty?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOrder, order. That does not arise here.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI think some notice should be given to the secretary as to the form of the summons, and surely it is not reasonable when no notice has been given to the secretary as to how much the amount is, and when he should pay, that the bailiff should be allowed to come in straight away.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSDoes the hon. Member really think that the Excise officer would take the trouble to take out a warrant of distress in that way?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThen why should we provide for them having power to make this demand? There is no precedent whatever for a distraint where there has been no demand for payment.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSNo such power is given.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI believe this is the first occasion upon which an attempt has been made to put into an Act of Parliament a drastic power enabling the authorities of any Department to go and issue a distress upon the goods of people who are not responsible for the debt, and do it without notice. The ordinary case that will happen is this. The furniture does not belong to the club at all, but it belongs to the landlord or to a club company. That club is in default in regard to the payment of this particular duty, and the distress takes place. Whose goods are taken? Not the goods belonging to the club. The Solicitor-General has just stated that the goods of the landlord or the donor of the club could be seized, and they will be in every case. That is the object of the Clause, and this can be done without a summons and without notice. Surely this is entirely unprecedented. The power to distrain upon the goods of other people for somebody else's default is absolutely without precedent. We ought to make that protest perfectly clear.
§ Mr. GRETTONThere is one matter which has not hitherto received the attention of the Committee. This process of proceeding by summons will give, in fact, an appeal against the assessment of the Commissioners. The proceeding proposed, of having a court of summary jurisdiction is an appeal into the investigations of the claim made against the club. On that ground there is very great force in this Amendment, and I think this fact ought to receive the careful attention of the Committee. There is no doubt that the whole proceedings intended are absolutely without precedent, and the Solicitor-General has entirely failed to make out the case. I am convinced that the Government are totally wrong on this question, and it is a matter upon which they ought to make a concession and allow some form of appeal and investigation, and have a proper legal notice enshrined in the Bill before they proceed to carry this Clause into law.
§ Mr. G. D. FABERThere is no precedent in law for the proceedings the Government propose to take under this Clause, and I am sure there is no precedent in justice. I am in one way glad that the Government have stiffened their backs on this point, and are not going to give way because they could not do a more unpopular thing if they have any regard for political popularity [An HON. MEMBER: "We have no regard for popularity."] I will make one last appeal to the Government, because I do not want them to lose their popularity. I ask in view of the fact that these clubs are in many cases small working men's clubs that this breathing space be allowed before permitting the drastic remedy of distress to take place. All we ask for is that not till after proceedings taken before a court of summary jurisdiction shall distress take place. There is no precedent for this Bill or for what we are asked to do under this Clause. It is no good putting precedent to me; you have swept away all precedents, and you are proceeding in a new course in a new land. We want justice. The working men of this country in this particular matter ask for justice. It will go forth in all the newspapers to-morrow that the Government have refused the request that notice shall be given in the manner I have described before the distress is enforced.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSLet me say, in answer to the hon. Member, that I wish I could respond to his appeal, but for once I must be adamant. We will run the risk of losing such popularity as remains to us. It would be a poor return for his great political benevolence if I were to deny him the chance of perhaps succeeding to our popularity.
§ Mr. J. S. ARKWRIGHTIt seems to me only one precedent remains, and that is the precedent he will find for giving way after he has said he is determined not to do so. We have had various precedents within the last half-hour. We were told on a previous Amendment that there was no precedent for the course suggested, and that therefore it could not be accepted by the Government. The Chancellor of the Duchy, however, in answer to our further request, said, "There is no precedent for this course; but it does not matter, and so we will concede your request." I do not know whether we are to understand that the learned Solicitor-General still adheres to his statement that there is no precedent, and that he still bases his refusal on that statement. I should have 1574 thought he would have to give up that position. There is no precedent for this Bill and the course the Government are taking, but there is a precedent for giving way, and I hope the genial and kindly heart of the Solicitor-General will make him think better of the course he proposes to take.
§ Mr. REMNANTMay I appeal to the Chancellor of the Duchy to help us in this matter? There is a growing disposition throughout the country to assist in the formation of common-sense clubs which are not limited to any narrow-minded sect, but are places in which the members may be allowed to exercise their free, unfettered, and sensible discretion. If we allow this Clause to pass as the Government have framed it, we shall do the whole club system a grievous harm. I am anxious also to assist the Government and their followers throughout the country in this matter. A considerable sum of money is spent in spreading the gospel of so-called Free Trade—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)That has nothing to do with the Amendment, which is whether the procedure shall be by a court of summary jurisdiction or as proposed in this Section.
§ Mr. REMNANTIf this distress is allowed to go without notice—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe question of distress has already been determined, and it is a question now of how it shall be recovered.
§ Mr. REMNANTI am anxious that notice shall be given to the clubs.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe only point is whether the procedure shall be by a court of summary jurisdiction or as in this Section.
§ Mr. REMNANTI am only following the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in giving illustrations of the hardship which necessitates the alteration of this Clause as we advocate. Being most desirous of promoting the proceedings of this Bill, and knowing how anxious the people in the country are to come to a decision in the matter, I will not prolong the Debate any further. I will only say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will help us, and agree to the Amendment we suggest.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
1576§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 151.
1575| Division No. 626.] | AYES. | [9.35 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Marks, H. H. (Kent) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Du Cros, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Faber, George Denison (York) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fell, Arthur | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Fletcher, J. S. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gardner, Ernest | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gretton, John | Renwick, George |
| Beech, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Roberts, S (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Healy, Timothy Michael | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hill, Sir Clement | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Keswick. William | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Younger, George |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lowe, Sir Francis William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Goulding and Mr. Lane-Fox. |
| Doughty, Sir George | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Agnew, George William | Harwood, George | Radford, G. H. |
| Alden, Percy | Haworth, Arthur A. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Henry, Charles S. | Rees, J. D. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Higham, John Sharp | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hogan, Michael | Fidsdale, E. A. |
| Barker, Sir John | Hudson, Walter | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Beale, W. P. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Robinson, S. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Jardine, Sir J. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rowlands, J. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Bright, J. A. | Jowett, F. W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | King, Albert John (Knutsford) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Laidlaw, Robert | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Lambert, George | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lamont, Norman | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lehmann, R. C. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Clough, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lewis, John Herbert | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lupton, Arnold | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lynch, H. B. | Summerbell, T. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Maclean, Donald | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Crooks, William | M'Callum, John M. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Crossley, William J. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Tomkinson. James |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Maddison, Frederick | Toulmin, George |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Verney, F. W. |
| Cavies. Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Micklem. Nathaniel | Waring, Walter |
| Dillon, John | Molteno, Percy Alport | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Morse, L. L. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Elibank, Master of | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Myer, Horatio | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Nuttall, Harry | Winfrey, R. |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Grayson, Albert Victor | Partington, Oswald | |
| Gulland, John W. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELmoved, in Sub-section (5), to omit the words "on the receipts from intoxicating liquor in a club."
This Amendment is in a slightly different form to that on the Paper because of the Amendment made in the Bill earlier in this sitting with regard to intoxicating liquors supplied for consumption off the club premises. We think the most effective plan of dealing with these drafting Amendments is to leave out the words I have mentioned, and then the Sub-section will read, "If any duty payable under this Section remains unpaid after the 1st day of March in any year," and so on.
§ Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERmoved, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words "sale of intoxicating liquor without a licence," and instead thereof to insert the words "supply or sale of intoxicating liquor on the premises of an unregistered club within the meaning of Section twenty-six of the Licensing Act, 1902."
I hope the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment. In a case where the annual payment is not made it is proposed by this Sub-section to put pressure on the club by treating the continued sale of drink as if it were a sale on unlicensed premises. That seems to me to be a rather unworkable way of bringing the pressure. It would bring the clubs under the Licensing Acts, whereas they have been kept entirely outside them up to the present. They have their own code of regulations set forth in the Act of 1902. It appears to me to be unreasonable to say that the sale of drink in a club shall be treated as if it were on unlicensed premises. I suggest the substitution of the penalty of treating the continued sale as a sale upon an unregistered club. You will thereby deprive the club of the protection of registration, and that certainly is a more symmetrical and reasonable way of dealing with the matter. I cannot help thinking that under the Bill as it stands there may be considerable difficulty as to the person to be proceeded against. Of course, the proceedings would have to be taken against the vendor of the drink, and there might be some difficulty in putting one's hand on the person who may be described as the actual and technical seller of the drink. If you deal with it in the way I suggest, as a sale in an unregistered club, then you have in the Act of 1902 the machinery for enforcing the law. and there 1578 is no question about the person who is liable. This is a technical matter, and I do not wish to occupy the attention of the Committee for long, but on these grounds I suggest this is a very reasonable Amendment.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe hon. and learned Member put this as a matter of facility and convenience. I can assure him that it has been carefully considered, and this Amendment would involve considerable alteration in other sections. There is a further difficulty in the way of adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, and it is, that we should have to make it apply to Scotland and Ireland. The Section of the Act of 1902 to which he refers, and under which he appears to have proceeded, does not apply either to Scotland or Ireland, and therefore there would have to be an Amendment, not in this Clause, but further on, making the Bill applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. GOULDINGmoved to leave out Sub-section (6), and to insert instead thereof:—
"(6) In the case of any registered club contemplating its voluntary discontinuance as a registered club during any calendar year, the secretary of the club shall, before the sending of any notice to the members of the club of any meeting to be held for considering the question of the discontinuance of the club as a registered club, give notice to the Commissioners of the intention to consider the question of discontinuance and of the date or dates fixed for its consideration and determination, and shall, at the time of giving such notice to the Commissioners, pay to them a sum bearing the same proportion to the duty paid by the club in respect of the preceding year, as the period between the first day of January and the date of the determination of the question of discontinuance bears to a whole calendar year; and if the said sum is not paid it may be levied by distress in the same way as unpaid duty under Subsection four of this Section; and credit shall be given to the club for any sum so paid to or retained by the Commissioners, in respect of any duty that may thereafter appear to be payable by the club in respect of the calendar year in which the said sum was so paid or retained."
I move this Amendment with a view of eliciting a statement from the Government as to what is their intention as to the 1579 payment of this duty. Is it to be paid in advance or at the end of the year? I maintain, if it is to be paid in advance, the machinery laid down in the Clause is unworkable, because in the case of the dissolution of a club, voluntarily or otherwise, it would be necessary to pay them back a sum and not to receive a sum from them. The Amendment which I propose sets up the machinery of recovering the duty from the clubs, in such an event, in the proper way. Suppose a club voluntarily dissolves, say in the month of January—unless you have some such proposal as is contained in the Sub-section suggested, you have no way of recovering any part of the debt from the dissolved club. Under this proposal it is laid down that the secretary, before proceeding to take the steps necessary for the dissolution of the club, should notify the Commissioners and put himself in a position to effect a payment. I cannot see why the Government always adhere to this policy of theirs, of delegating all duties to the Commissioners. Why cannot this House state clearly in the Bill what they propose to do, and put it down in black and white?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI should like to call the hon. Member's attention to the opening words of the Clause: "It shall be the duty of the secretary of every registered club to deliver to the Commissioners in the month of January of every year, or within such further time as the Commissioners may in any case allow, a statement of the purchases during the preceding calendar year of intoxicating liquor supplied to the club." He will see from that that the duty is to be levied for the preceding calendar year, with which the statement will deal. Consequently, the duty is not levied in advance, but is always, so to speak, in arrear, and his point is met. If a club were to dissolve in the course of the year then the procedure adopted, in Sub-section (6), is well adapted to the circumstances of the case, and so much duty is made to be payable in respect of the liquor which has been consumed in that particular club in the year. I would point out to him also that his proposal, in the first place, is unnecessary, and in the second place would impose a very onerous obligation on the secretary of the club which might be dissolving. These clubs often fade away, and it is very hard upon a secretary, when he is harassed by the winding up of his club, to impose upon him the obligation of sending a notice of 1580 this character, or else rendering himself liable to penalties.
§ Mr. CLAVELL SALTERI should be glad if the Chancellor of the Duchy could give us some idea of the meaning of the Sub-section and the kind of rules which are to be made under it. The unvarying resource in this Bill, whenever you come against a difficulty, is for the Government to solve it by saying some authority shall make rules which shall deal with it. Let us take the case of a club which is dissolved or suppressed in November. It has done 10 months of trade on which it has paid no duty. How is that 10 months duty to be recovered when January comes? There will be no secretary of the club, no one whose duty it will be to make a return on which the taxation is to be founded, no secretary to prosecute, and no possibility of bringing pressure to bear on the club in the way in which you can punish an existing club by punishing them for continued sale. There will be no club in existence, and no premises on which you can distrain. I should be glad if the Chancellor of the Duchy or the Solicitor-General would indicate to us not in detail but in outline in what kind of way the Commissioners' rules are destined to deal with such cases as that, and in what way they intend to recover the 10 months' duty.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe rules will have to deal with one or two very obvious points. One of the rules would be to say that the duty payable should be in proportion to the length of time the club has been in actual existence. The second is, that the person who is liable should be the person who was the secretary when it dissolved. I only sketch these out as they have to be considered by the authorities, and I cannot bind their subsequent discretion, but in all probability rules such as that would be made, and there are similar points more or less obvious of that character. There would be a certain risk that in cases of that kind the duty properly payable would not be recovered; that always happens when you are not charging a duty in advance but in arrear, and that is a risk from which the revenue must suffer, because the only alternative would be to charge the duty in advance and before a new club had been opened or before an old club had made any sales, and that would be obviously unjust.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made does illustrate the extent to which the Government are 1581 carrying this system of regulations. He says that the first and most obvious point that a regulation would lay down would be that the duty should be payable for the number of months in the year for which the club has remained open. That would naturally be the only thing to say. And why should we not say it now? Why should we leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners to say whether the duty should be proportionate or disproportionate? Why give them the absolute task of saying in this case as in others the taxes which people are to pay—not to devise regulations for the collection of the tax, but to determine the amount of the tax payable by the taxpayer? I think that is a misuse of regulations, and a point of that kind ought to have been provided in the Bill, and not to have been left to the discretion of anybody but permanent officials. The other point was that they would provide who was to be responsible, and the Chancellor of the Duchy said the natural person to be responsible would be the secretary. I think in the case of a club that is being wound up you may really be putting on the secretary an obligation which he has no power to discharge. If there is to be a duty of this kind, and I am one of those who desire to see such a duty imposed, I do not want to have it evaded, but I am not at all certain that it is fair, in the case of a club which is being wound up, to hold the secretary personally responsible for the payment of any duty which may have accrued, but which the club may be wholly unable to pay.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONMay I point out the extraordinary position the Government have got into over this Section. This duty is to be payable on the amount of purchases made by a club during the previous calendar year, but no one is made liable to pay it. There is a power to distrain upon the club premises, and to seize other people's goods who have nothing to do with the club at all, but no one in the first instance is liable to pay the duty. The Chancellor of the Duchy, in dealing with the question of the rules and regulations to be made in the event of a club being wound up after ten months, says doubtless one of these regulations will be to make the secretary liable.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe person who was the secretary at the time of the dissolution of the club should be regarded as their secretary for the purposes of the Clause.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the secretary was liable. If he is not liable then no one is liable, and the Government have not any chance of getting anything out of anyone, because they have to wait until the following January, and the Secretary has then to make his statement of the amount of the purchase of the previous year. The Chancellor of the Duchy then gave another of the regulations which will be an obvious one to make, and that is that the amount of duty shall be proportionate to the number of months during which the club has been open. What has that got to do with anything connected with this Clause in its present form? That might have been applied when we were taxing the receipts, as we were in the original form of the Bill, but now we are taxing purchases.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt was a slip of the tongue. I said receipts instead of purchases.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIt was more than a slip of the tongue, because the tax is simply on the amount of purchases as proportioned to the number of months. It is the literal amount of beer, wine, or spirits which have been bought during the previous year. Whether it is sold or not is quite immaterial. It may be all on the premises, and may be distrained upon if it is left there. Under the Bill it is immaterial what becomes of it afterwards. Once a club has purchased the liquor it has to pay the duty. There is no question of the proportion of 12 months. Making allowance for the slip of the tongue, the first regulation the right hon. Gentleman gave us is absolutely unnecessary, because it does not arise at all. As regards the second, the liability of the secretary, no regulation ought to make him liable if he is not liable already under this Bill, and no one is made liable to pay this sum at all. I hope the Government will consider this before the Report stage and make this Section effective.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Clause-provides that it shall be the duty of the secretary of every club to deliver to the Commissioners in the month of January in every year a statement of the purchases during the preceding year. The club that we are considering has not reached the month of January at all, and this Clause will not apply at all. It is obviously desirable that a club which has been carry- 1583 ing on business until November shall not escape scot free of duties for the whole year. What more reasonable than to say regulations are to be made for enabling the amount of duty to be assessed in such a case? Obviously, unless some provision is made, the Clause will not apply at all. Clearly you cannot make it apply to purchases during the preceding calendar year because it is not a whole year. That, again, has to be considered, during what period are you going to consider the purchases? Furthermore, the hon. Member says there may be accumulated stocks in hand which the club may wish to sell. The Treasury may say that is a very fair thing. You do not propose to charge for stocks which are unused, and deductions may be made in that respect. The Acts passed by the late Government are full of regulations of this character. In the Licensing Act of 1904 there were over 70 different rules covering 40 or 50 pages. This is in the nature of procedure. Really it is an excessively small point for the Opposition to ask the Committee to spend its time upon, to say precisely in what way is a great Government Department to adapt a Clause to fit the particular case of a club which does not last for a year.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman, I understand, says that in the event of a club dissolving in November the question might arise as to how it is to be taxed for the ten months which have elapsed, and he has also said that it might be that they had a stock which they wished to sell, and the Treasury might decide whether or not they would be charged upon those stocks. We have arrived at this, that the House of Commons is not to fix the amount of the tax, but the Treasury officials are to fix it according to the circumstances which in their opinion may arise. That is what we have always been contending against. We do not think the power of taxing an individual, whether he is a brewer or a teetotaler or whoever he is, should be allowed to remain in the hands of an official of the Treasury. We think it should be imposed by Parliament, and that Parliament should know what it is doing when it imposes the charge. The right hon. Gentleman says the Opposition are wasting the time of the House of Commons in discussing these points. I ask hon. Members to look back to their election addresses when they said they were going to restore the control of the House of Commons over the finances of the 1584 nation. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] This is the restoration of the control of the House of Commons over finance. Not only are we not allowed to decide what the tax is to be, but when we venture to protest we are howled down or met with derisive cheers by hon. Gentlemen opposite who want to go to bed? Not being Conservative publicans, they do not care what happens to these unfortunate people. I should not have risen to speak if it had not been that I think the public ought to know what they have to submit to under what is called a democratic Government. A power which has been preserved to the House of Commons for 300 or 400 years, and which the House of Commons in former times fought for, is to be taken away from them if the right hon. Gentleman comes down and says this is a matter which is to be left to an official of the Treasury. I think when the electorate know that the idea of the Government is that the imposition of taxes should be left to officials, when the election comes, whenever it may be, they will not return people possessed of those ideas.
§ Sir E. CARSONI want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Commissioners, under the last words of this Sub-section, would have power to regulate who was to pay the duty? The words are, "and for charging the duty under this Section in respect of that statement." I think the right hon. Gentleman said that they would have power of saying whether the secretary or some other person was to pay the duty. I do not know whether I am right in that?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELOf course, the Commissioners will have no power to decide. All that the Clause gives them is power to make regulations for adapting the Section to the case of a club which is discontinued during the year.
§ Sir E. CARSONThat is a very cryptic answer. What I want to know is whether the Commissioners will have the power of saying who is to pay the duty? That is a. very specific question.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNo more than they would have in the case of a club under the other Sub-section.
§ Sir E. CARSONThat is not an answer to my question. The Commissioners are not given power under the other Subsection. I want an answer, yes or no, to a. very simple question. Will the Commis- 1585 sioners have power under these words to say that the secretary, the chairman, or somebody else, or the committee, will have to pay? Can they select some person to be liable to pay the tax?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI should certainly answer that in the negative.
§ Sir E. CARSONThen I am satisfied.
§ Mr. FELLWhen I first read this Clause I realised that there was great danger of encouraging bogus clubs, which ought to be hampered and destroyed. This Bill will exactly suit them, while it will press heavily on well-conducted clubs. The clubs that I refer to will dissolve in December. There will be no secretary or anybody else in January. You may have the name of the registered secretary, but the police of London will not be able to find him. This will be a premium on clubs of that description. I do not personally believe that you will get returns from any of the bogus clubs unless you require that the returns shall be made more frequently than once a year. Are the Government going to run the risk of losing revenue in that way? This provision in regard to
§ clubs will tend to encourage the growth of bogus clubs, which will remain in existence until December. Then they will be dead for the purposes of revenue, and the people connected with these clubs will start under another name in February, and the Government will never get any return from them.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I ask what machinery is contemplated for supervising clubs and seeing that the taxation is levied in accordance with the returns sent in? Will there be any means of checking the statements? Is it contemplated that an Excise officer should have the right to enter a club and examine the accounts?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThat question does not arise on this Sub-section.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOtherwise those provisions could not be put in operation. That is a very pertinent question.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 77.
1587| Division No. 627.] | AYES. | [10.15 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Elibank, Master of | Lynch, H. B. |
| Agnew, George William | Erskine, David C. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Alden, Percy | Esslemont, George Birnie | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Maclean, Donald |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Everett, R. Lacey | M'Callum, John M. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Findlay, Alexander | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Barker, Sir John | Fullerton, Hugh | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gullanel, John W. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Beale, W. P. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hart-Davies, T. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Massie, J |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Harwood, George | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Bright, J. A. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Hedges, A. Paget | Morrell, Philip |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morse, L. L. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Henry, Charles S. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Higham, John Sharp | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hogan, Michael | Myer, Horatio |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Holland, Sir William Henry | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hudson, Walter | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cleland, J. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Clough, William | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jardine, Sir J. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Partington, Oswald |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Jowett, F. w. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Kekewich, Sir George | Priestley, Arthur Grantham |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Laidlaw, Robert | Radford, G. H. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Crossley, William J. | Lambert, George | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Lamont, Norman | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Rees, J. D. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lehmann, R. C. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dillon, John | Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lupton, Arnold | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Robinson, S. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Stanger, H. Y. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Rowlands, J. | Summerbell, T. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) | Tomkinson, James | Winfrey, R. |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Toulmin, George | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Verney, F. W. | |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Walters, John Tudor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Waring, Walter | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fletcher, J. S. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Foster, P. S. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gardner, Ernest | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Renton, Leslie |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.) | Renwick, George |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Helmsley, Viscount | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hill, Sir Clement | Stanier, Beville |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordhsire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hunt, Rowland | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Kennaway, Rt. Hon, Sir John H. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Kerry, Earl of | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Keswick, William | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lane-Fox, G R. | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Lowe. Sir Francis William | |
| Doughty, Sir George | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Moore, William | Salter and Mr. Goulding. |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount |
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendments made: To leave out receipts from" in Sub-section (6) ["receipts from intoxicating liquor"], and insert "purchases of."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
§ To leave out the words "supplied in the club" ["liquor supplied in the club."]—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSONmoved, to leave out, at the end of the same Subjection, the words, "and for charging the duty under this Section in respect of that statement." I confess frankly I do not understand what those words mean. So far as the Sub-section appears to go, the only way the duty can be recovered is by distress under Sub-section (4), and so far as I see, there is no individual or personal liability for the duty. I am unable to understand why the Commissioners, after a club has been dissolved some months before and the property sold, should be entitled to say who are to be liable for the duty. Accordingly, I move the omission of those words for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have the meaning I have placed upon them, and to ask the judgment of the Committee 1588 whether it is reasonable that the Commissioners should have the power to say who is to pay the duty. If the words have not that meaning, then I ask the Government to say what meaning they give them.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThere is a little misapprehension about those words which is perhaps not unnatural. The duty, in the case of a club, is chargeable on the statement made at the beginning of the year. In the case of a club which comes to an end on 30th August the Commissioners are to make regulations for procuring under this Sub-section that the statement is made, and the duty will be charged on that statement.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf I understand the Solicitor-General rightly, he states that these words do not give the Commissioners power to charge duty against any particular person. So far that is satisfactory, but then what is to happen in the case of one of those clubs, and who is responsible for the duty? If the club is closed the Government cannot levy distress, and has then no recourse.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSNot except the one suggested.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINNo recourse against the committee or any of the officers of the club? It would be a very serious position in regard to some of these matters if, failing satisfaction on the club premises of a club which had been closed, every member of the club were to become personally liable. I do not know what hon. Members, who were defending clubs, below the Gangway would say to this subject. If it is perfectly clear that the recourse is against the club and not against the individuals, then I am satisfied.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. YOUNGERI should like to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Duchy. I noticed, in the course of his remarks on the Licence Duty on clubs, he said the Licence Duty in January of each year was to be assumed to be "permanently in arrear," and under those circumstances the duty paid in January was the duty paid for the previous year. Assuming that the Budget passes, the statement next January will be the statement of the purchases during last year. Therefore the clubs in January next will have to pay taxes, including the period before this Budget was, I will not say thought of, but disclosed to this House. I want to know under what provision of law, under this Bill, what reason or precedent there is, or fairness there is, in charging duty for the months of January, February, March, and April to those clubs before this House had any cognisance of the Budget?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is not a duty on the liquor, but is in the nature of a licence to the club to carry on its operations for the period from 1st January next. The only question is how much the licence is. It is assessed on the basis of the purchases of the preceding year. The hon. Member, who is interested in the brewing trade, will be in precisely the same position.
§ Mr. YOUNGERVery unfairly.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELHe and the clubs will be in good company, one with 1590 the other. Both will be charged Licence Duty for the following twelve months, but the Licence Duty will be assessed upon the basis of the purchases of the preceding twelve months.
§ Mr. YOUNGERThe explanation is that when he used the words "permanently in arrear" the right hon. Gentleman really referred to years in the future, and not to the present year. It was a wrong expression I think.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI hope before the Report stage the Government will consider whether they cannot strengthen this Clause. This proposal is not aimed at the respectable clubs. In their cases the returns will be made by the secretary, and somebody will pay. But in the case of disreputable clubs let the Committee consider the various loopholes in the Clause. On 1st January the secretary has to make a 'statement of the purchases during the past year. There is no sort of check upon that statement. The Government have no power to make any kind of inspection. The secretary is not required to make any statement as to the stock at the beginning and at the end of the year. The duty is to be paid on the secretary's statement, and the Commissioners have no power to challenge the statement unless they can prove before a police court that it has been knowingly incorrectly made. By this Clause nobody is made liable for the duty at all; consequently the only way of recovering the duty is by a distress upon the club premises. A club of the kind to which I am referring, if wound up in December, will take the precaution of removing its furniture from the club premises, and the Government will be absolutely without remedy as to the collection of the duty. They cannot make the secretary or the committee liable, nor even, in the case of a political club, the Member of Parliament who is president. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent such a club beginning again in the same neighbourhood under another name. I am not pointing out these defects for the purpose of objecting to the legislation contained in the Clause, but in order to urge the Government to make the Clause watertight as against the class of club to which I refer.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.