§ (1) Any reference in any Act or document Lo any description of Excise Licence for the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor which is expressed in the First Schedule to correspond to any description of licence which may be granted under this Act shall 1599 be deemed to be a reference to the description of licence to which it is expressed to correspond.
§ (2) The additional retail licences for the sale of spirits or liqueurs or beer granted to a dealer in spirits or beer, and the licence for the sale of table beer, and the combined licence for the sale by retail of wine and beer, shall cease to be granted, without prejudice to the continuance of any such licence which is in force at the time of the passing of this Act until the date when the licence expires in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
§ Mr. STAVELEY-HILLmoved, after Subsection (1) to insert, "(2) Any licence which is expressed in the First Schedule of this Act to correspond to any existing licence shall, if applied for, be granted in substitution for such existing licence and shall be a renewal of the licence, and in the case of any existing Excise Licence which may be granted without a justices' licence being required, no justices' licence shall be required for the issue of the corresponding Excise Licence under this Act."
There would not appear to be very much doubt as to what was the intention of the Government when the Bill was framed, having regard to answers which they have given, from which one gathers that they intended the existing state of things to continue. I should like to know whether under this Sub-section it is the intention of the Government to place licences under this Act, though they may differ from the existing Excise Licences, in the same position as those for which they are substituted. We do not want any ambiguity with regard to the renewal of a licence or any breach of the continuity of renewal, because the continuity of renewal is one of the essentials to the right of compensation under the Act of 1904, and it is also one of the few remaining privileges which will exist with regard to the ante-'69 beer-houses. I should like to know whether the Government mean this substituted licence to be a new licence or a renewal. It is not as clear in the Schedule as it should be. I should also like to know whether under this Section a justices' licence is necessary where a present Excise Licence exists.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe intention of the Government is as expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We do not propose to make any difference at all in respect of the substituted licence in any case, either from the Excise point of view or from the point of view of the necessity of a justices' licence. The hon. and 1600 learned Gentleman has used the word "renewal." It is not of such importance when we deal with Excise licences as with justices' licences. I am entirely at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman in that object which he has in view, but I am assured, and I believe, that the first Subsection, which says we must read into the old Acts of Parliament the reference to the new licences which now exist, covers the point entirely, and if it does it is very much better not to put this in for fear it might be argued that the general efficiency of Sub-section (1) might be impaired. I think certainly at this stage the hon. Member might withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. STAVELEY-HILLI beg to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. GRETTONI beg to move to leave out the words "or liqueurs" ["The additional retail licences for the sale of spirits or liqueurs"]. This is not a very large point, but it is one upon which an explanation should be given. There are certain peculiarities in the present law with reference to the sale of liqueurs manufactured in this country. A British liqueur cannot be sold retail in less than a certain quantity, and under an Inland Revenue Act a privilege in that respect is given to foreign liqueurs. I wish to know whether, if the Government obtain the provisions of this Bill, it is their intention to repeal the section of the Inland Revenue Act which gives foreign liqueurs a privilege in order that they may be put on the same footing as British liqueurs, I am advised that the effect of the Bill as drawn is to put British and foreign liqueurs on the same footing.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe hon. Member is correctly informed. We are Free Traders and consequently we desire to see foreign goods and English goods treated on an equality. The present law gives a preference to foreign liqueurs because they can be sold in bottles of the size imported while British liqueurs must be sold in bottles of the size required by law. The effect of the provisions now under discussion will be to sweep away the privilege given to foreign liqueurs.
§ Mr. GRETTONI understand that it is usual, in the administration of the law, for the Excise to allow a certain number of bottles as a dutiable minimum. I think it is important that it should be understood whether that practice will be discontinued, or whether the effect of the Bill as drawn 1601 will be to make importers put up their liqueurs in accordance with the requirements of the law in this country.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIf the hon. Member will allow me, I shall make further inquiry on that point. It is a purely technical point. A particular quantity is specified, and the seller of the articles under the present law would be able to sell in smaller bottles, provided that he does not sell a smaller number of the smaller bottles than are required to make up the minimum he is allowed to sell. Whether the quantity should be absolutely and mathematically the same, and whether the bottles should be treated so strictly that neither a drop too much nor too little should be given, is a matter on which I should like to inquire.
§ Mr. GRETTONUnder these circumstances I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information which he has given.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.